In Reply We read with great interest the contrasting views from Dr Rothschild and Dr Brown suggesting that evaluation of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria is either insufficiently sensitive or too aggressive for the detection of genitourinary pathology. The crux of this debate pertains to the yield and potential value of early detection of genitourinary conditions in the setting of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria. Our Original Investigation 1 focused on detection of malignancy, which we believe is paramount, since patients with urothelial cancer may have progression of disease by the time they develop symptoms. 2,3 Dr Rothschild argues for the expansion of microscopic hematuria workup to include considerations of a wide variety of pathology, including a particular focus on genital disease. In a single, retrospective series of urinalysis performed predominantly for monitoring of pharmacologic toxic effects, he identified a range of pathology including abnormal Papanicolau tests result, uterine polyps, and vaginal mesh erosion in patients with microscopic hematuria. 4 Thus, he proposes that evaluation of microscopic hematuria should include additional tests for these conditions. To our knowledge, there is no additional data to suggest an association between asymptomatic microscopic hematuria and genital pathologies such as abnormal Papanicolau test results or uterine polyps; further evidence is needed to establish these associations. However, even if this were the case, the value of early detection in the asymptomatic patient must first be established prior to targeting each of these conditions in standard diagnostic protocols. For example, physical examination alone would likely detect vaginal mesh erosion, a condition for which current recommendations suggest conservative management, as there is minimal benefit to intervention in the absence of symptoms. 5 In contrast, Dr Brown notes that the natural history of glomerular disease renders it potentially lethal in the absence of symptoms. We agree that the presence of casts or other atypical features on urinalysis should trigger referral to a nephrologist for further evaluation given the risk of chronic kidney disease and established importance of early detection. 6 However, the presence of these findings may not obviate the need to rule out underlying malignancy-further analysis is required to determine whether the proposed sequence would optimize microscopic hematuria evaluation.Likewise, Dr Brown also raises the question of more limited workup in younger patients given the lower risk of underlying malignancy. While our model was not designed to further age-stratify evaluation beyond the presented dichotomy (<50 vs ≥50 years), the substantially decreased risk of malignancy in the youngest group of patients may ultimately decrease the yield and obviate the need for cystoscopy, and even ultrasonography, in these patients. We hope that the current model serves as a catalyst for future studies that will help to refine the evaluation of asymptomatic microscopic ...