Advertisement

Urine Cytology

  • Madelyn Lew
Chapter
Part of the Atlas of Anatomic Pathology book series (AAP)

Abstract

Urine cytology is a convenient method by which clinicians can screen and triage patients with urinary symptoms as well as a history of exposure to bladder-toxic agents. This chapter reviews cytologic findings in a variety of urine specimens with variable degrees of atypia and highlights the criteria for specific diagnoses in the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.

Keywords

Urine Urothelial carcinoma Bladder washing Neobladder Polyomavirus Low-grade urothelial neoplasm High-grade urothelial carcinoma 

References

  1. 1.
    Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI, editors. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology. New York: Springer; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Studeman KD, Loffe OB, Puszkiewicz J, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detected squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:605–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Michael CW, Pang Y, Pu RT, Hasteh F, Griffith KA. Cellular adequacy for thyroid aspirates prepared by ThinPrep: how many cells are needed? Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;68:792–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prather J, Arville B, Grazina Chatt CT, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Quek ML, Barkan GA. Evidence-based adequacy criteria for urinary bladder barbotage cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chau K, Rosen L, Coutsouvelis C, Fenelus M, Brenkert R, Klein M, et al. Accuracy and risk of malignancy for diagnostic categories in urine cytology at a large tertiary institution. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:10–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Case B, Aprikian A, Kassouf W, Auger M. Accuracy of urine cytology and the significance of an atypical category. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:785–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Vrbin CM, Geisinger KR. Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:946–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mokhtar GA, Al-Dousari M, Al-Ghamedi D. Diagnostic significance of atypical category in the voided urine samples: a retrospective study in a tertiary care center. Urol Ann. 2010;2:100–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenthal DL, Vandenbussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Sathiyamoorthy S, Guan H, Owens C. The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples I. Creating the template. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA, Meyer RG, Burkhardt HM, Halling AC, et al. A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol. 2000;164:1768–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer Cytopathol. 1999;87:118–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beyer-Boon ME, de Voogt HJ, van der Velde EA, Brussee JA, Schaberg A. The efficacy of urinary cytology in the detection of urothelial tumours. Sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology. Urol Res. 1978;6:3–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boon L, Bianchini E, Altavilla G. Polyomavirus infection versus high grade bladder carcinoma. Acta Cytol. 1989;33:887–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cibas ES, Ducatman BS, editors. Cytology: diagnostic principles and clinical correlates. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schistosomiasis fact sheet. World Health Organization. 2017. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs115/en. Accessed 5 Nov 2017.
  16. 16.
    Owens CL, Vandenbussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Rosenthal DL. A review of reporting systems and terminology for urine cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:9–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bostwick DG, Hossain D. Does subdivision of the “atypical” urine cytology increase predictive accuracy for urothelial carcinoma? Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:1034–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 outcomes and cytomorphologic study. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:21–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glass R, Cocker R, Rosen L, Coutsouvelis C, Chau K, Slim F, et al. The impact of subdividing the “atypical” category for urinary cytology on patient management. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016;44:477–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Granados R, Duarte JA, Corrales T, Camarmo E, Bajo P. Applying the Paris System for reporting urine cytology increases the rate of atypical urothelial cells in benign cases: a need for patient management recommendations. Acta Cytol. 2016;61:71–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murphy WM, Soloway MS, Jukkola AF, Crabtree WN, Ford KS. Urinary cytology and bladder cancer. The cellular features of transitional cell neoplasms. Cancer. 1984;53:1555–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raab S, Lenel J, Cohen M. Low grade transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cytologic diagnosis by key features as identified by logistic regression analysis. Cancer. 1994;74:1621–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Renshaw AA, Nappi D, Weinberg DS. The cytology of grade 1 papillary transitional cell carcinoma: a comparison of cytologic, architectural, and morphometric criteria in cystoscopically obtained urine. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:676–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCroskey Z, Bahar B, Hu Z, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. Subclassifying atypia in urine cytology: what are the helpful features? J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:183–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations