Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens

Renshaw, Andrew A.

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20000825)90:4<222::aid-cncr4>3.0.co;2-a

Cited by 94 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among those features, hyperchromasia has consistently been shown to be an independent predictor of HGUCA; however, because it has also been frequently reported in LGUCA, it makes it an essential but nondiscriminatory feature between low-grade and high-grade urothelial lesions. 6,[8][9][10][11][12] Similarly, irregular nuclear membranes, although most often reported in specimens harboring HGUCA, can also be present in LGUCA and even in certain reactive conditions, in particular stone atypia. 4,5,9 At least 3 studies, including the current one, have reported a significant association between pleomorphism and subsequent HGUCA, making it a powerful feature in assessing urine cytology specimens and in differentiating low-grade from high-grade tumors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urine cytology: does the number of atypical urothelial cells matter? A qualitative and quantitative study of 112 cases

Brimo

Kassouf

et al. 2015

Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urine cytology: does the number of atypical urothelial cells matter? A qualitative and quantitative study of 112 cases

Brimo

Kassouf

et al. 2015

Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…8 Noninvasive or low-grade tumor specimens are the greatest challenge to the cytopathologist, who may be forced to use ambiguous terms such as "atypical urothelial cells," which sometimes leads to improper patient management. 9,10 In the last few years, various new tests for the detection of bladder carcinoma in urine specimens have been commercialized, 11 but to our knowledge none has gained broad acceptance or been definitively shown to exceed the results obtained by conventional cytology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic classification of urothelial cells in urine cytology specimens using exclusively spectral information

Jaganath

Angeletti

Levenson

et al. 2004

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The standard diagnostic features used for urothelial carcinoma are many or single urothelial cells with dark hyperchromatic nuclei with coarse chromatin, 24,25 increased nuclear to cytoplasmic ratios, anisonucleosis, and irregular nuclear membranes. 6,7,26 uCyt Immunofluorescence Staining Slide preparation for uCyt immunofluorescence staining was performed within 7 days of sample collection, according to the procedure published in the manufacturer's instruction sheet.…”

Section: Cytologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of ProEx C and ImmunoCyt/uCyt Assays in Atypical Urine Cytology

Vergara‐Lluri

Rao

et al. 2014

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context.-Detection of urothelial carcinoma by urine cytology can be challenging. Recently, ProEx C has been studied as a marker to improve detection of urothelial carcinoma. ProEx C is an assay targeting expression of topoisomerase II-a and the minichromosome maintenance protein-2 and is used to assist in diagnoses of gynecologic specimens.Objective.-To evaluate the utility of ProEx C and uCyt in atypical urine cytology.Design.-Sixty-eight specimens with a diagnosis of atypical urine cytology, concurrent uCyt testing, and surgical biopsy follow-up were included. Slides were restained with ProEx C. ProEx C was recorded as positive when nuclear staining was seen in at least one morphologically atypical urothelial cell. The uCyt was scored as positive if at least one morphologically atypical urothelial cell showed positive fluorescence staining. Thirteen cases (19%) had benign histologic diagnoses, 18 (26%) had lowgrade papillary urothelial carcinoma, and 37 (54%) had high-grade urothelial carcinoma.Results.-The overall sensitivity was 85% for ProEx C, 85% for uCyt, and 93% for the combination of the 2 assays. The overall specificity was 69% for ProEx C, 31% for uCyt, and 23% for the combination of the 2 tests. In predicting high-grade urothelial carcinoma, sensitivity was 92% for ProEx C, 86% for uCyt, and 92% for both tests. In predicting low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, sensitivity was best with the combination of the 2 tests at 94%.Conclusion.-ProEx C has superior specificity to uCyt. The combination of the 2 tests yielded high sensitivity not only for high-grade urothelial carcinoma but also for lowgrade papillary urothelial carcinoma.

show abstract

Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens

Cited by 94 publications

References 10 publications

Urine cytology: does the number of atypical urothelial cells matter? A qualitative and quantitative study of 112 cases

Urine cytology: does the number of atypical urothelial cells matter? A qualitative and quantitative study of 112 cases

Diagnostic classification of urothelial cells in urine cytology specimens using exclusively spectral information

Comparative Evaluation of ProEx C and ImmunoCyt/uCyt Assays in Atypical Urine Cytology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About