Ces Urol 2018, 22(4):242-250 | DOI: 10.48095/cccu2018039

Current status of urine cytology: what should the urologist know?

Kristýna Pivovarčíková1,2, Tomáš Pitra3, Milan Hora3, Marián Švajdler1,2, Ondřej Hes1,2
1 Šiklův ústav patologie LF UK a FN Plzeň
2 Bioptická laboratoř, s. r. o., Plzeň
3 Urologická klinika LF UK a FN Plzeň

Pivovarčíková K, Pitra T, Hora M, Švajdler M, Hes O. Current status of urine cytology: what should the urologist know? Major statement: Review dealing with urine cytology, actual classification system, and basic rules in collection and storage of the urine specimen. Urine cytology is a non-invasive examination, which is used for detection of neoplastic cells in urine. A new classification for reporting urinary cytology was published in 2016 (so called The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology). Implementation of The Paris System will lead to global standardization and uniformity of urine cytology reports. It is important to get to know the new nomenclature and to remember basic rules of urine cytology. Reliable results in urine cytology can be reached only by close cooperation and understanding between urologist and pathologist.

Keywords: Urine cytology, urothelial carcinoma, Paris classification, liquid based cytology.

Received: August 9, 2018; Accepted: September 10, 2018; Prepublished online: October 4, 2018; Published: December 1, 2018 

Open full article

References

  1. Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Switzerland Springer; 2016. Go to original source...
  2. Koss LG, Deitch D, Ramanathan R, Sherman AB. Diagnostic value of cytology of voided urine. Acta cytol. 1985; 29(5): 810-816.
  3. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Vrbin CM, Geisinger KR. Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 127(6): 946-953. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999; 87(3): 118-128. Go to original source...
  5. Badalament RA, Kimmel M, Gay H, et al. The sensitivity of flow cytometry compared with conventional cytology in the detection of superficial bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 59(12): 2078-2085. Go to original source...
  6. Badalament RA, Hermansen DK, Kimmel M, et al. The sensitivity of bladder wash flow cytometry, bladder wash cytology, and voided cytology in the detection of bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 60(7): 1423-1427. Go to original source...
  7. Hermansen DK, Badalament RA, Bretton PR, et al. Voided urine flow cytometry in screening high‑risk patients for the presence of bladder cancer. J Occup Med. 1990; 32(9): 894-897. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Planz B, Jochims E, Deix T, et al. The role of urinary cytology for detection of bladder cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005; 31(3): 304-308. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Keller AK, Jensen JB. Voided urine versus bladder washing cytology for detection of urothelial carcinoma: which is better? Scand J Urol. 2017; 51(4): 290-292. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Son SM, Koo JH, Choi SY, et al. Evaluation of urine cytology in urothelial carcinoma patients: a comparison of CellprepPlus(R) liquid‑based cytology and conventional smear. Korean J Pathol. 2012; 46(1): 68-74. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin‑layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001; 12(5): 306-313. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Hwang EC, Park SH, Jung SI, et al. Usefulness of liquid‑based preparation in urine cytology. Int J Urol. 2007; 14(7): 626-629. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Laucirica R, Bentz JS, Souers RJ, et al. Do liquid‑based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases? Observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134(1): 19-22. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Luo Y, She DL, Xiong H, Yang L, Fu SJ. Diagnostic value of liquid‑based cytology in urothelial carcinoma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. PloS one. 2015; 10(8): e0134940. Go to original source...
  15. 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(3): 174-180. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Thiryayi SA, Rana DN. Urine cytopathology: challenges, pitfalls, and mimics. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012; 40(11): 1019-1034. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Babjuk M, Koštířová M, Mudra K, et al. Stanovení proteinu blízkého faktoru H komplementu (BTA TRAK A BTA STAT), fragmentů cytokeratinů 8 a 18 (UBC IRMA A UBC RAPID) a cytologie moči při neinvazivní detekci nádorů močového měchýře. Czech Urol 2001; 5(3): 4-8.
  18. Babjuk M, Koštířová M, Mudra K, et al. Místo neinvazivních testů (BTA STAT, BTA TRAK, UBC RAPID, UBC IRMA) a cytologie při sledování pacientů s povrchovými nádory močového měchýře. Ces Urol. 2001; 5(3): 9-13.
  19. Szakácsová M, Soukup V, Babjuk M, et al. Exprese genů BCL-2 a BAX-1 ve tkáni Ta, T1 uroteliálních karcinomů močového měchýře a jejich prognostický význam. Ces Urol 2013; 17(3): 204-209.
  20. Pešl M, Soukup V, Babjuk M, et al. Význam stanovení močové hladiny TATI (tumour associated trypsin inhibitor) pro diagnostiku a prognózu tumorů močového měchýře. Ces Urol. 2015; 19(1): 44-50.
  21. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta‑analyses. Urology 2003; 61(1): 109-18; discussion 18.
  22. Kinders R, Jones T, Root R, et al. Complement factor H or a related protein is a marker for transitional cell cancer of the bladder. Clin Cancer Res. 1998; 4(10): 2511-2520.
  23. Soloway MS, Briggman V, Carpinito GA, et al. Use of a new tumor marker, urinary NMP22, in the detection of occult or rapidly recurring transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract following surgical treatment. J Urol. 1996; 156(2 Pt 1): 363-367. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Cappellen D, De Oliveira C, Ricol D, et al. Frequent activating mutations of FGFR3 in human bladder and cervix carcinomas. Nat Genet. 1999; 23(1): 18-20. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Allory Y, Beukers W, Sagrera A, et al. Telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutations in bladder cancer: high frequency across stages, detection in urine, and lack of association with outcome. Eur Urol. 2014; 65(2): 360-366. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Rachakonda PS, Hosen I, de Verdier PJ, et al. TERT promoter mutations in bladder cancer affect patient survival and disease recurrence through modification by a common polymorphism. Proc Natl Acad Sciences U S A. 2013; 110(43): 17426-17431. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Ward DG, Baxter L, Gordon NS, et al. Multiplex PCR and next generation sequencing for the non‑invasive detection of bladder cancer. PloS one. 2016; 11(2): e0149756. Go to original source...
  28. Pivovarcikova K, Pitra T, Vanecek T, et al. Comparative study of TERT gene mutation analysis on voided liquid‑based urine cytology and paraffin‑embedded tumorous tissue. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2016; 24: 7-10. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Ward DG, Bryan RT. Liquid biopsies for bladder cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(2): 331-335. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Birkenkamp‑Demtroder K, Christensen E, Nordentoft I, et al. Monitoring treatment response and metastatic relapse in advanced bladder cancer by liquid biopsy analysis. Eur Urol. 2017. Go to original source...
  31. Pardini B, Cordero F, Naccarati A, et al. MicroRNA profiles in urine by next‑generation sequencing can stratify bladder cancer subtypes. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(29): 20658-20669. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  32. Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M, et al. EAU guidelines on non‑muscle‑invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(3): 447-461. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  33. Roupret M, Babjuk M, Comperat E, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2017 update. Eur Urol. 2018; 73(1): 111-122. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  34. Kamat AM, Hegarty PK, Gee JR, et al. ICUD‑EAU international consultation on bladder cancer 2012: Screening, diagnosis, and molecular markers. Eur Urol. 2013; 63(1): 4-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  35. Tan WS, Sarpong R, Khetrapal P, et al. Does urinary cytology have a role in haematuria investigations? BJU Int. 2018 Jul 12. doi: 10.1111/bju.14459. [Epub ahead of print]. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  36. Meilleroux J, Daniel G, Aziza J, et al. One year of experience using the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018; 126(6): 430-436. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  37. 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(3): 207-214. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

Return to the content



Web časopisu Česká urologie je určen pouze pro lékaře a odborníky
z oblasti medicíny nebo farmacie.



Beru na vědomí, že informace zveřejněné na těchto stránkách
nejsou určeny pro laickou veřejnost.


Odejít Vstoupit