A comparison between conventional and the Paris systems of reporting urinary cytopathology with a literature update.
Urine cytology, conventional system, Paris system, numeric criteria, atypical urothelial cells, high-grade urothelial carcinoma
Journal
Diagnostic cytopathology
ISSN: 1097-0339
Titre abrégé: Diagn Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8506895
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jan 2024
02 Jan 2024
Historique:
revised:
06
12
2023
received:
31
07
2023
accepted:
18
12
2023
medline:
2
1
2024
pubmed:
2
1
2024
entrez:
2
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Owing to certain inherent limitations of earlier reporting systems, "The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS)" was implemented in 2015 to standardize reporting urine cytology with more stringent cytomorphologic criteria. We share our post-TPS experience, comparing it with the conventional system (CS). To assess and compare the cyto-histopathologic/cystoscopic agreement between the conventional and the Paris systems (CS and TPS) for reporting urine cytology. It is a cross-sectional study involving urine samples from 170 patients divided into two groups (CS and TPS). Of the 170 cases, 85 were reported according to the CS, and 85 were reported according to TPS with all the relevant clinical, radiologic, and cystoscopic findings. Using the kappa statistics, both groups were statistically analyzed for sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and agreement. The sensitivity and specificity for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) as per TPS were 83.33% and 94.59%, respectively, while they were 73.47% and 80.56% for the conventional system. The agreement for HGUC with TPS was 87.06% with a kappa value of 0.7416, while it was 76.5% with a kappa value of 0.53 for the CS. Implementing the TPS minimized usage of the atypical urothelial cells (AUC) category, increasing the clarity in detecting HGUC. TPS provides better agreement with histopathology than the CS for diagnosing HGUC, which is attributable to stringent TPS criteria that prompt cytopathologists to look more diligently for morphologic and numeric criteria.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Ramakumar S, Bhuiyan J, Besse JA, et al. Comparison of screening methods in the detection of bladder cancer. J Urol. 1999;161:388-394.
Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer. 1999;87:118-128.
Papanicolaou GN. Cytology of the urine sediment in neoplasms of the urinary tract. J Urol. 1947;57:375-379.
Koss LG, Bartels PH, Sychra JJ, Wied GL. Diagnostic cytologic sample profiles in patients with bladder cancer using TICAS system. Acta Cytol. 1978;22:392-397.
Murphy WM, Soloway MS, Jukkola AF, Crabtree WN, Ford KS. Urinary cytology and bladder cancer. The cellular features of transitional cell neoplasms. Cancer. 1984;53:1555-1565.
Ooms ECM, Veldhuizen RW. Cytological criteria and diagnostic terminology in urinary cytology. Cytopathology. 1993;4:51-54.
Layfield LJ, Elsheikh TM, Fili A, Nayar R, Shidham V. Review of the state of the art and recommendations of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for urinary cytology procedures and reporting: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Practice Guidelines Task Force. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:24-30.
Rosenthal DL, Vandenbussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Sathiyamoorthy S, Guan H, Owens C. The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples: part I-creating the template. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:15-20.
VandenBussche CJ, Sathiyamoorthy S, Owens CL, Burroughs FH, Rosenthal DL, Guan H. The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples: parts II and III: improving the predictability of indeterminate results in urinary cytologic samples: an outcome and cytomorphologic study. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:21-28.
Owens CL, VandenBussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Rosenthal DL. A review of reporting systems and terminology for urine cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:9-14.
Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Springer; 2015:177.
Hassan M, Solanki S, Kassouf W, et al. Impact of implementing the Paris system for reporting urine cytology in the performance of urine cytology: a correlative study of 124 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146:384-390.
Torous VF, Brancely D, VanderLaan PA. Implementation of the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology results in lower atypical diagnostic rates. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017;6:205-210.
Malviya K, Fernandes G, Naik L, Kothari K, Agnihotri M. Utility of the Paris system in reporting urine cytology. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:145-152.
Roy M, Kaushal S, Jain D, Seth A, Iyer VK, Mathur SR. An institutional experience with The Paris System: a paradigm shift from ambiguous terminology to more objective criteria for reporting urine cytology. Cytopathology. 2017;28:509-515.
Bertsch EC, Siddiqui MT, Ellis CL. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology improves correlation with surgical pathology biopsy diagnoses of the lower urinary tract. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46:221-227.
Glass R, Rosen L, Chau K, et al. Analysis of the cytomorphological features in atypical urine specimens following application of the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Acta Cytol. 2018;62:54-61.
Wang Y, Auger M, Kanber Y, Caglar D, Brimo F. Implementing the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology results in a decrease in the rate of the “atypical” category and an increase in its prediction of subsequent high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:207-214.
Gupta M, VandenBussche CJ, Bivalacqua TJ. Urinary cytology and the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology: implications for urological management. Cytopathology. 2018;29:368-370.
Zare S, Mirsadraei L, Reisian N, et al. A single institutional experience with the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology: correlation of cytology and histology in 194 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2018;150:162-167.
Chan E, Balassanian R, Tabatabai ZL, Lou H, Vohra P. Improved diagnostic precision of urine cytology by implementation of the Paris system and the use of cell blocks. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:809-816.
Rai S, Lali BS, Venkataramana CG, Philipose CS, Rao R, Prabhu GL. A quest for accuracy: evaluation of the Paris system in diagnosis of urothelial carcinomas. J Cytol. 2019;36:169-173.
Vallamreddy SKR, Vaheda Begam K, Pratima J. Implementation of the Paris system versus institutional diagnosis in the performance of urinary cytology: a 5 years correlative study of 74 cases. IP Arch Cytol Histopathol Res. 2019;4:193-198.
McIntire PJ, Khan R, Hussain H, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. Negative predictive value and sensitivity of urine cytology prior to implementation of the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127:125-131.
Glass R, Rosca O, Raab S, et al. Applying the Paris system for reporting urine cytology to challenging cytology cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2019;47:675-681.
Ranade RN, Kori NP, Athanikar VS. Utility of urine cytology in genitourinary lesions and implication of Paris system in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma - five years of experience from a tertiary care centre at North Karnataka. J Evid Based Med Healthc. 2021;8:58-63.
Yamasaki M, Taoka R, Katakura K, et al. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology improves the negative predictive value of high-grade urothelial carcinoma. BMC Urol. 2022;22:51.
Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI, Rosenthal DL, eds. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. 2nd ed. Springer International Publishing; 2022.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249.
Antoni S, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Znaor A, Jemal A, Bray F. Bladder cancer incidence and mortality: a global overview and recent trends. Eur Urol. 2017;71:96-108.
Hajdinjak T. UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing. Urol Oncol. 2008;26:646-651.
Nikas IP, Seide S, Proctor T, Kleinaki Z, Kleinaki M, Reynolds JP. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology: a meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2022;12:170.
Prather J, Arville B, Chatt G, et al. Evidence-based adequacy criteria for urinary bladder barbotage cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:57-62.
de Prealta-Ventura M, Kini SR. Urinary system. In: Kini SR, ed. Color Atlas of Differential Diagnosis in Exfoliative and Aspiration Cytology. 2nd ed. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams &Wilkins. Philadelphia SR; 2011:325-347.
Koss LG, Melamed MR. Tumours of the urinary tract in urine and brushings. In: Koss LG, Melamed MR, eds. Koss' Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases. Vol 1. 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005:776-846.
Sullivan PS, Chan JB, Levin MR, Rao J. Urine cytology and adjunct markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. Am J Transl Res. 2010;2:412-440.
Cowan ML, Rosenthal DL, VandenBussche CJ. Improved risk stratification for patients with high-gradeurothelial carcinoma following application of the Parissystem for reporting urinary cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125:427-434.
Richardson CJ, Pambuccian SE, Barkan GA. Split-sample comparison of urothelial cells in ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in urinary cytology: do we need to adjust the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology criteria? Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;128:119-125.
Pierconti F, Martini M, Straccia P, et al. Hypochromatic large urothelial cells in urine cytology are indicative of high grade urothelial carcinoma. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand. 2018;126:705-709.
Suo L, Vega I, Thrall M. Cyto-histo correlations of plasmacytoid and micropapillary variants of high-grade urothelial carcinoma: do they fit well in The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology? J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:20-24.
Stern ES, Siddiqui MT. Nuclear hypochromasia: Shedding light on the “lightness” of high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol. 2021;49:1032-1035.
Renshaw AA, Gould EW. High-grade urothelial carcinoma with hypochromatic chromatin in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10(1):25-28.
Murphy WM, Crabtree WN, Jukkola AF, Soloway MS. The diagnostic value of urine versus bladder washing in patients with bladder cancer. J Urol. 1981;126:320-322.
VandenBussche CJ, Rosenthal DL, Olson MT. Adequacy in voided urine cytology specimens: the role of volume and a repeat void upon predictive values for high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:174-180.
Wojcik EM. What should not be reported as atypia in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:30-36.
Lee PJ, Owens CL, Lithgow MY, Jiang Z, Fischer AH. Causes of false-negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016;44:994-999.
YuanL GM, Zia S, Aryal SC, Shetty S, Reynolds JP. Cyto-histo correlation and false-negative urine: before and after the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2022;50:404-410.
Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Nayar R, et al. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2016;5:177-188.
Renshaw AA. Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2000;90:222-229.
Brimo F, Xu B, Kassouf W, et al. Urine cytology: does the number of atypical urothelial cells matter? A qualitative and quantitative study of 112 cases. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:232-238.
Piaton E, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Mege-Lechevallier F, Advenier AS, Devonec M, Ruffion A. Diagnostic terminology for urinary cytology reports including the new subcategories ‘atypical urothelial cells of undetermined significance’ (AUC-US) and ‘cannot exclude high grade’ (AUC-H). Cytopathology. 2014;25:27-38.
Nu TNT, Kassouf W, Ahmadi-Kaliji B, Charbonneau M, Auger M, Brimo F. The value of the “suspicious for urothelial carcinoma” cytology category: a correlative study of 4 years including 337 patients. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122:796-803.
Folarin OS, Siddiqui MT. Are we on track for diagnosing high-grade urothelial carcinoma with a minimum quantity of five malignant cells in lower tract specimens? Critical analysis of The Paris System Quantitation Criteria. Cancer Cytopathol. 2023;131:708-715. doi:10.1002/cncy.22749
Şimşek GG, Güreşçi S, Oğuz U, Ünsal A. Cytological diagnosis of small cell carcinoma of urinary bladder in a patient with CLL. Cell J Yakhteh. 2014;16:95-98.