Literature DB >> 31295017

Practice Patterns in Urinary Cytopathology Prior to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.

Güliz A Barkan1, Z Laura Tabatabai1, Daniel F I Kurtycz1, Vijayalakshmi Padmanabhan1, Rhona J Souers1, Ritu Nayar1, Charles D Sturgis1.   

Abstract

CONTEXT.—: The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology has been disseminated since its inception in 2013; however, the daily practice patterns of urinary tract cytopathology are not well known. OBJECTIVE.—: To assess urinary tract cytopathology practice patterns across a variety of pathology laboratories to aid in the implementation and future update of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. DESIGN.—: A questionnaire was designed to gather information about urinary tract cytopathology practices and mailed in July 2014 to 2116 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program. The participating laboratories' answers were summarized. RESULTS.—: Of the 879 of 2116 laboratories (41%) that participated, 745 (84.8%) reported processing urinary tract specimens in house. The laboratories reported processing various specimen types: voided urine, 735 of 738 (99.6%); bladder washing/barbotage, 639 of 738 (86.6%); and catheterized urine specimens, 653 of 738 (88.5%). Some laboratories used multiple preparation methods, but the most commonly used preparation techniques for urinary tract specimens were ThinPrep (57.4%) and Cytospin (45.5%). Eighty-eight of 197 laboratories (44.7%) reported preparing a cell block, but with a low frequency. Adequacy criteria were used by 295 of 707 laboratories (41.7%) for voided urine, and 244 of 707 (34.5%) assessed adequacy for bladder washing/barbotage. More than 95% of the laboratories reported the use of general categories: negative, atypical, suspicious, and positive. Polyomavirus was classified as negative in 408 of 642 laboratories (63.6%) and atypical in 189 of 642 (29.4%). One hundred twenty-eight of 708 laboratories (18.1%) performed ancillary testing, and of these, 102 of 122 (83.6%) reported performing UroVysion. CONCLUSIONS.—: Most laboratories use the ThinPrep method followed by the Cytospin technique; therefore, the criteria published in The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, based mostly on ThinPrep and SurePath, should be validated for Cytospin, and relevant information should be included in the revised edition of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31295017     DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0045-CP

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  3 in total

Review 1.  The Diagnostic Dilemma of Urothelial Tissue Fragments in Urinary Tract Cytology Specimens.

Authors:  Derek B Allison; M Lisa Zhang; Poonam Vohra; Christopher J VandenBussche
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-08

2.  Current classification systems and standardized terminology in cytopathology.

Authors:  Tibor Mezei
Journal:  Rom J Morphol Embryol       Date:  2020 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.033

3.  Cytospin performance when using Paris system for reporting urinary cytology.

Authors:  Samah Saharti; Hessa Aljhdali; Rana Ajabnoor; Reem A Al Zahrani; Yara Daous; Fahd Refai; Fatima Badawi; Ghadeer Mokhtar; Doaa Alghamdi
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 2.345

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.