Gopalakrishna A, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of urine-based tests for bladder cancer varies greatly by patient. BMC Urol. 2016;16:30.
Bolenz C, West AM, Ortiz N, Kabbani W, Lotan Y. Urinary cytology for the detection of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder—a flawed adjunct to cystoscopy? Urologic Oncol Seminars Orig Investigations. 2013;31:366–71.
Barkan GA, et al. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2016;5:177–88.
Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz D. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22864-8.pdf.
Anbardar MH, Monjazeb R. Reclassification of urinary cytology regarding The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology with cytohistological correlation demonstrates high sensitivity for high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48:446–52.
Stanzione N, et al. The continual impact of the Paris System on urine cytology, a 3-year experience. Cytopathology. 2020;31:35–40.
Vosoughi A, et al. The Paris System “atypical urothelial cells” category: can the current criteria be improved? J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;10:3–8.
Compton ML, Weiss VL, Barkan GA, Ely KA. Targeted education as a method for reinforcing Paris System criteria and reducing urine cytology atypia rates. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;10(1):9–13.
Granados R, Duarte JA, Corrales T, Camarmo E, Bajo P. Applying the Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology increases the rate of atypical urothelial cells in benign cases: a need for patient management recommendations. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:71–6.
Brimo F, Auger M. The atypical urothelial cell category in the Paris System: strengthening the Achilles’ heel. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:305–6.
Glass RE, et al. Two-tiered subdivision of atypia on urine cytology can improve patient follow-up and optimize the utility of UroVysion. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:188–95.
Hassan M, et al. Impact of implementing the Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology in the performance of urine cytology: a correlative study of 124 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146:384–90.
Joudi AM, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. The positive predictive value of “suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma” in urinary tract cytology specimens: a single-institution study of 665 cases. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:811–9.
Miki Y, Neat M, Chandra A. Application of The Paris System to atypical urine cytology samples: correlation with histology and UroVysion((R)) FISH. Cytopathology. 2017;28:88–95.
Wang Y, Auger M, Kanber Y, Caglar D, Brimo F. Implementing The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology results in a decrease in the rate of the “atypical” category and an increase in its prediction of subsequent high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:207–14.
Zheng X, et al. The Paris System for urine cytology in upper tract urothelial specimens: a comparative analysis with biopsy and surgical resection. Cytopathology. 2018;29:184–8.
Suh J, et al. Modification of The Paris System for urinary tract washing specimens using diagnostic cytological features. Cytopathology. 2017;28:516–23.
Malviya K, Fernandes G, Naik L, Kothari K, Agnihotri M. Utility of the Paris System in Reporting Urine Cytology. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:145–52.
Rezaee N, Tabatabai ZL, Olson MT. Adequacy of voided urine specimens prepared by ThinPrep and evaluated using The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017;6:155–61.
Torous VF, Brancely D, VanderLaan PA. Implementation of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology results in lower atypical diagnostic rates. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017;6:205–10.
Mikou P, et al. Evaluation of the Paris System in atypical urinary cytology. Cytopathology. 2018;29:545–9.
Rohilla M, et al. Cytohistological correlation of urine cytology in a tertiary centre with application of the Paris system. Cytopathology. 2018;29:436–43.
Zare S, et al. A single institutional experience with the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: correlation of cytology and histology in 194 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2018;150:162–7.
VandenBussche CJ, Allison DB, Gupta M, Ali SZ, Rosenthal DL. A 20-year and 46,000-specimen journey to Paris reveals the influence of reporting systems and passive peer feedback on pathologist practice patterns. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:381–9.
Meilleroux J, et al. One year of experience using the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:430–6.
Bertsch EC, Siddiqui MT, Ellis CL. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology improves correlation with surgical pathology biopsy diagnoses of the lower urinary tract. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46:221–7.
Xing J, Monaco SE, Pantanowitz L. Utility of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology in upper urinary tract specimens. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7:311–7.
Cowan ML, VandenBussche CJ. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: early review of the literature reveals successes and rare shortcomings. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7:185–94.
Kurtycz DFI, et al. Paris Interobserver Reproducibility Study (PIRST). J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7:174–84.
Richardson CJ, Pambuccian SE, Barkan GA. Split-sample comparison of urothelial cells in ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in urinary cytology: do we need to adjust The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology criteria? Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;128:119–25.
Bakkar R, et al. Impact of the Paris system for reporting urine cytopathology on predictive values of the equivocal diagnostic categories and interobserver agreement. Cytojournal. 2019;16:21.
Vlajnic T, Gut A, Savic S, Bubendorf L. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology in daily practice with emphasis on ancillary testing by multiprobe FISH. J Clin Pathol. 2020;73:90–5.
Barkan GA, et al. Practice patterns in urinary cytopathology prior to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;144:172–6.
McIntire PJ, et al. Negative predictive value and sensitivity of urine cytology prior to implementation of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127:125–31.
Abro S, et al. Outcome analysis and negative predictive value of the “unsatisfactory/nondiagnostic” category of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:64–70.
McIntire PJ, Kilic I, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology reduces atypia rates and does not alter the negative predictive value of urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:14–9.
Danakas A, Sweeney M, Cheris S, Agrawal T. Urinary tract cytology: a cytologic-histopathologic correlation with The Paris System, an institutional study. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:56–63.
Myles N, et al. Evidence-based diagnostic accuracy measurement in urine cytology using likelihood ratios. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:71–8.
Sahai R, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of The Paris System of Reporting Urine Cytology on cytocentrifuged samples. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48(11):979–85; https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24476.
Pastorello RG, Barkan GA, Saieg M. Experience on the use of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytopathology: review of the published literature. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:79–87.
Galen RS, Gambino RS. Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. Wiley; 1975.
Pambuccian SE. What is atypia? Use, misuse and overuse of the term atypia in diagnostic cytopathology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. n.d.;4:44–52.
Melamed MR, Wolinska WH. On the significance of intracytoplasmic inclusions in the urinary sediment. Am J Pathol. 1961;38:711–9.
Frost JK. The cell in health and disease. An evaluation of cellular morphologic expression of biologic behavior. 2nd, revised edition. Monogr Clin Cytol. 1986;2:1–304.
Raistrick J, Shambayati B, Dunsmuir W. Collection fluid helps preservation in voided urine cytology. Cytopathology. 2008;19:111–7.
Ahmed HG, Tom MA. The consequence of delayed fixation on subsequent preservation of urine cells. Oman Med J. 2011;26:14–8.
Zhang ML, Guo AX, VandenBussche CJ. Morphologists overestimate the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:669–77.
Vaickus LJ, Tambouret RH. Young investigator challenge: the accuracy of the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio estimation among trained morphologists. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:524–30.
Hang JF, Charu V, Zhang ML, VandenBussche CJ. Digital image analysis supports a nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio cutoff value of 0.5 for atypical urothelial cells. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125:710–6.
Long T, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cytojournal. 2017;14:17.
McIntire PJ, et al. Digital image analysis supports a nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio cutoff value below 0.7 for positive for high-grade urothelial carcinoma and suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127:120–4.
Barkan GA, Wojcik EM. Genitourinary cytopathology (kidney and urinary tract). Canc Treat. 2014;160:149–83.
McIntire PJ, Elsoukkary SS, Robinson BD, Siddiqui MT. High-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology: different spaces – different faces, highlighting morphologic variance. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:36–40.
Zhang ML, et al. A review of urinary cytology in the setting of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;10:29–35.
Kurtycz D, et al. Perceptions of Paris: an international survey in preparation for The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology 2.0 (TPS 2.0). J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10(5):S4.
McCroskey Z, Bahar B, Hu Z, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. Subclassifying atypia in urine cytology: what are the helpful features? J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:183–9.
Renshaw AA, Gould EW. High-grade urothelial carcinoma with hypochromatic chromatin in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:25–8.
Pierconti F, et al. Hypochromatic large urothelial cells in urine cytology are indicative of high grade urothelial carcinoma. APMIS. 2018;126:705–9.
Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Pambuccian SE. A tale of atypia: what can we learn from this? Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:376–80.
Rai S, et al. A quest for accuracy: evaluation of The Paris System in diagnosis of urothelial carcinomas. J Cytol. 2019;36:169–73.
Vaheda Begam K, Vallamreddy SKR, Pratima J. Implementation of the Paris system versus institutional diagnosis in the performance of urinary cytology: a 5 years correlative study of 74 cases. IP Arch Cytol Histopathol Res. 2019;4:193–8.
Roy M, et al. An institutional experience with The Paris System: a paradigm shift from ambiguous terminology to more objective criteria for reporting urine cytology. Cytopathol Off J Br Soc Clin Cytol. 2017;28:509–15.