Abstract
Atypia is admittedly a difficult topic to cover no matter what the organ system it is in. The most important reason for this is its subjective nature – it is in the eye of the beholder. In keeping with the mantra of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, the goal for the “atypical urothelial cells” (AUC) category is to capture the cases worrisome for high-grade urothelial carcinoma that fall short of the “suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma” (SHGUC) category. It is important to ensure that known causes of atypia such as polyomavirus change, treatment effect, etc., are classified as “negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma” (NHGUC), and not under the AUC category. In order to make this a tangible and more objective category we have set forth criteria for AUC using four main cytomorphologic features: nuclear to cytoplasmic (N/C) ratio, nuclear chromasia, chromatin pattern, and features of the chromatinic rim. From a clinical standpoint, whenever the diagnosis of AUC is rendered on a case, this inconclusive category may create confusion and anxiety in the patient, and may lead to unnecessary procedures. Therefore, we recommend that the “AUC” interpretation should be kept at a minimum, and not be used as a waste basket.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Pambuccian SE. What is atypia? Use, misuse and overuse of the term atypia in diagnostic cytopathology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:44–52.
Wojcik EM. What should not be reported as atypia in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:30–6.
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.
Cochand-Priollet B, Schmitt FC, Tötsch M, Vielh P, European Federation of Cytology Societies’ Scientific Committee. The Bethesda terminology for reporting thyroid cytopathology: from theory to practice in Europe. Acta Cytol. 2011;55:507–11.
Sherman ME, Dasgupta A, Schiffman M, Nayar R, Solomon D. The Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST): a web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 System for classifying cervical cytology. Cancer. 2007;111:15–25.
Barasch S, Choi M, Stewart III J, Das K. Significance of atypical category in voided urine specimens prepared by liquid-based technology: experience of a single institution. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2014;3:118–25.
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.
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.
Muus Ubago J, Mehta V, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. Evaluation of atypical urine cytology progression to malignancy. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:387–91.
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.
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.
Streeter EH, Turner GD, McCormick R, Roberts IS, Crew J. The significance of atypical urine cytology in the face of normal investigations—is extended investigation and follow-up required? Br J Med Surg Urol. 2008;1:131–5.
Kapur U, Venkataraman G, Wojcik EM. Diagnostic significance of ‘atypia’ in instrumented versus voided urine specimens. Cancer. 2008;114:270–4.
Bhatia A, Dey P, Kakkar N, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R. Malignant atypical cell in urine cytology: a diagnostic dilemma. Cytojournal. 2006;3:28.
Deshpande V, McKee GT. Analysis of atypical urine cytology in a tertiary care center. Cancer. 2005;105:468–75.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barkan, G.A. et al. (2016). Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC). In: Rosenthal, D., Wojcik, E., Kurtycz, D. (eds) The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22864-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22864-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22863-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22864-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)