Faysal A Yafi1, Fadi Brimo2, Manon Auger2, Armen Aprikian1, Simon Tanguay1, Wassim Kassouf3. 1. Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Department of Pathology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: wassim.kassouf@muhc.mcgill.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of urine cytology during a contemporary period at our institution in comparison with historical analysis and other reported urinary biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 1,114 consecutive patients corresponding to 3,251 specimens (2,979 cytologic and 272 histologic specimens) between January 2006 and July 2006 were retrieved. Subsequent cytologic and surgical specimen reports were examined with a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Collected parameters included the date of collection, reason for urinary evaluation, type of specimen, and tumor grade. Atypical diagnosis was considered negative. RESULTS: On cytologic examination, 71% of specimens were benign, 23% atypical, and 6% suspicious or positive for urothelial carcinoma. Reason for collection was surveillance in 61% and new symptoms in 28%. Depending on the tumor grade, sensitivity results ranged from 10% for low-grade to 51% for high-grade tumors. Importantly, specificity of urine cytology ranged from 83% to 88% (depending on the type of urine collection and type of clinical presentation). Anticipatory positive rate was 44% after a median time of 15 months. Specificity of other reported urinary markers ranges from 40% to 90%. CONCLUSION: Our institution's experience with regard to specificity of urine cytology is lower than reported historically. Whether this is a consequence of heterogeneous study designs and parameters is open to debate. As the anticipatory positive rate was high, close surveillance remains recommended in patients with positive urine cytology and negative workup. Other institutions are encouraged to evaluate whether there remains a significant advantage for urine cytology over other urinary marker assays within their own clinical setting.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of urine cytology during a contemporary period at our institution in comparison with historical analysis and other reported urinary biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 1,114 consecutive patients corresponding to 3,251 specimens (2,979 cytologic and 272 histologic specimens) between January 2006 and July 2006 were retrieved. Subsequent cytologic and surgical specimen reports were examined with a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Collected parameters included the date of collection, reason for urinary evaluation, type of specimen, and tumor grade. Atypical diagnosis was considered negative. RESULTS: On cytologic examination, 71% of specimens were benign, 23% atypical, and 6% suspicious or positive for urothelial carcinoma. Reason for collection was surveillance in 61% and new symptoms in 28%. Depending on the tumor grade, sensitivity results ranged from 10% for low-grade to 51% for high-grade tumors. Importantly, specificity of urine cytology ranged from 83% to 88% (depending on the type of urine collection and type of clinical presentation). Anticipatory positive rate was 44% after a median time of 15 months. Specificity of other reported urinary markers ranges from 40% to 90%. CONCLUSION: Our institution's experience with regard to specificity of urine cytology is lower than reported historically. Whether this is a consequence of heterogeneous study designs and parameters is open to debate. As the anticipatory positive rate was high, close surveillance remains recommended in patients with positive urine cytology and negative workup. Other institutions are encouraged to evaluate whether there remains a significant advantage for urine cytology over other urinary marker assays within their own clinical setting.
Authors: Michael D Bell; Faysal A Yafi; Fadi Brimo; Jordan Steinberg; Armen G Aprikian; Simon Tanguay; Wassim Kassouf Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Philip H Kim; Ranjit Sukhu; Billy H Cordon; John P Sfakianos; Daniel D Sjoberg; A Ari Hakimi; Guido Dalbagni; Oscar Lin; Harry W Herr Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Karsten Salomo; Doreen Huebner; Manja U Boehme; Alexander Herr; Werner Brabetz; Ulrike Heberling; Oliver W Hakenberg; Daniela Jahn; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Daniel Steinbach; Marcus Horstmann; Michael Froehner; Manfred P Wirth; Susanne Fuessel Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Haythem Dimashkieh; Daynna J Wolff; T Michael Smith; Patricia M Houser; Paul J Nietert; Jack Yang Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jan Ebbing; Susanne Mathia; Felix S Seibert; Nikolaos Pagonas; Frederic Bauer; Barbara Erber; Karsten Günzel; Ergin Kilic; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Kurt Miller; Alexander Bachmann; Christian Rosenberger; Walter Zidek; Timm H Westhoff Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 4.226