Application of The Paris System in neobladder washing cytology: Comparison between the original diagnosis and correlation with histopathology.

BACKGROUND In urinary diversion after radical cystectomy, the incidence of recurrent urothelial carcinoma (UC) in upper urinary tract or urethra are reported in 2%-17% of the patients. Urine cytology plays a pivotal role in detecting the recurrence of UC. However, cytologic diagnosis in urinary diversion including neobladder is often challenging due to significant degenerative changes and necro-inflammatory background. Since the proposal of The Paris System (TPS) for reporting cytology, the utility of TPS in urinary diversion specimen has not been studied yet. The objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of TPS compared with the original diagnosis and correlate with the matched histopathological results. METHODS Urinary diversion cytology specimens with concurrent or subsequent biopsy or resection at EUMC in recent 16 years (from January 2002 to December 2018) are retrospectively reviewed and reclassified according to TPS criteria. The TPS categories and the original diagnoses were compared and correlated with follow-up histology. RESULTS Concurrent or subsequent biopsy or resection within a 6-month period was available in 45 cases from 28 patients. When applying TPS, the rate of atypical and suspicious categories decreased by 13.4% and 11.1%. Using TPS increased the value of sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy to 93.75%, 93.75%, and 90.91%, respectively. CONCLUSION Application of TPS reduced the rate of indeterminate diagnoses and moreover, improved the sensitivity and accuracy of urinary diversion cytology. Therefore, we believe that diversion urine cytology diagnosis according to TPS is useful to screen patients for detection of recurrence in routine clinical practice.

[1]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Cyto‐histo correlation and false‐negative urine: Before and after the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology , 2020, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[2]  D. Chhieng,et al.  The Paris System for urine cytology in upper tract urothelial specimens: A comparative analysis with biopsy and surgical resection , 2018, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[3]  C. VandenBussche,et al.  Improved risk stratification for patients with high‐grade urothelial carcinoma following application of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology , 2017, Cancer cytopathology.

[4]  G. Fernandes,et al.  Utility of the Paris System in Reporting Urine Cytology , 2017, Acta Cytologica.

[5]  A. Chandra,et al.  Application of The Paris System to atypical urine cytology samples: correlation with histology and UroVysion® FISH , 2017, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[6]  L. Pantanowitz,et al.  Cytohistologic correlation of recurrent urothelial carcinoma detected in urinary diversion specimens , 2017, Cancer cytopathology.

[7]  A. Fischer,et al.  Causes of false‐negative for high‐grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology , 2016, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[8]  R. Granados,et al.  Applying the Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology Increases the Rate of Atypical Urothelial Cells in Benign Cases: A Need for Patient Management Recommendations , 2016, Acta Cytologica.

[9]  F. Brimo,et al.  Impact of Implementing the Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology in the Performance of Urine Cytology:  A Correlative Study of 124 Cases. , 2016, American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[10]  S. Pambuccian,et al.  Urine cytology in monitoring recurrence in urothelial carcinoma after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion , 2016, Cancer cytopathology.

[11]  Anirban P. Mitra,et al.  Outcomes after urothelial recurrence in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy. , 2014, Urology.

[12]  F. Mege-Lechevallier,et al.  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) , 2014, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[13]  G. Barkan,et al.  Evaluation of atypical urine cytology progression to malignancy , 2013, Cancer cytopathology.

[14]  C. VandenBussche,et al.  The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples , 2013, Cancer cytopathology.

[15]  C. VandenBussche,et al.  The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples , 2013, Cancer cytopathology.

[16]  L. Carmignani,et al.  Upper urinary tract recurrence following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a meta-analysis on 13,185 patients. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[17]  F. Brimo,et al.  Accuracy of urine cytology and the significance of an atypical category. , 2009, American journal of clinical pathology.

[18]  A. Renshaw Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens , 2000, Cancer.

[19]  S. Groshen,et al.  Urethral recurrence in patients with orthotopic ileal neobladders. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[20]  D. Esrig,et al.  Management of the patient with bladder cancer. Urethral recurrence. , 1994, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[21]  M. Quek,et al.  The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: The Quest to Develop a Standardized Terminology , 2016, Acta Cytologica.

[22]  A. Vickers,et al.  Longitudinal risk of upper tract recurrence following radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer and the potential implications for long-term surveillance. , 2008, The Journal of urology.