Skip to main content

Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC)

  • 302 Accesses

Abstract

The goal for the atypical urothelial cells (AUC) category is to capture those cases worrisome for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) but that fall short of the suspicious for HGUC (SHGUC) category. Known causes of atypia, such as polyomavirus change, treatment effect, calculi, etc., should be classified as negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (NHGUC). We have set forth criteria for AUCs using the cytomorphologic features: increased nuclear to cytoplasmic (N/C) ratio secondary to nuclear enlargement, abnormal nuclear chromasia and chromatin pattern, and irregularity of the chromatinic rim (nuclear membrane). We recommend restraint using the “AUC” category.

Keywords

  • Atypical urothelial cells
  • AUC
  • Atypia
  • Urothelial atypia
  • Suspicious
  • Equivocal
  • Indeterminate
  • The Paris System (TPS)

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-88686-8_4
  • Chapter length: 21 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-88686-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 4.1
Fig. 4.2
Fig. 4.3
Fig. 4.4
Fig. 4.5
Fig. 4.6
Fig. 4.7
Fig. 4.8
Fig. 4.9
Fig. 4.10
Fig. 4.11
Fig. 4.12
Fig. 4.13
Fig. 4.14
Fig. 4.15
Fig. 4.16
Fig. 4.17
Fig. 4.18
Fig. 4.19

References

  1. Gopalakrishna A, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of urine-based tests for bladder cancer varies greatly by patient. BMC Urol. 2016;16:30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stanzione N, et al. The continual impact of the Paris System on urine cytology, a 3-year experience. Cytopathology. 2020;31:35–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brimo F, Auger M. The atypical urothelial cell category in the Paris System: strengthening the Achilles’ heel. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:305–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Suh J, et al. Modification of The Paris System for urinary tract washing specimens using diagnostic cytological features. Cytopathology. 2017;28:516–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mikou P, et al. Evaluation of the Paris System in atypical urinary cytology. Cytopathology. 2018;29:545–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rohilla M, et al. Cytohistological correlation of urine cytology in a tertiary centre with application of the Paris system. Cytopathology. 2018;29:436–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Meilleroux J, et al. One year of experience using the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:430–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kurtycz DFI, et al. Paris Interobserver Reproducibility Study (PIRST). J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7:174–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Myles N, et al. Evidence-based diagnostic accuracy measurement in urine cytology using likelihood ratios. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:71–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Galen RS, Gambino RS. Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. Wiley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Melamed MR, Wolinska WH. On the significance of intracytoplasmic inclusions in the urinary sediment. Am J Pathol. 1961;38:711–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Raistrick J, Shambayati B, Dunsmuir W. Collection fluid helps preservation in voided urine cytology. Cytopathology. 2008;19:111–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ahmed HG, Tom MA. The consequence of delayed fixation on subsequent preservation of urine cells. Oman Med J. 2011;26:14–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang ML, Guo AX, VandenBussche CJ. Morphologists overestimate the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:669–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Long T, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cytojournal. 2017;14:17.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Barkan GA, Wojcik EM. Genitourinary cytopathology (kidney and urinary tract). Canc Treat. 2014;160:149–83.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. High-grade urothelial carcinoma with hypochromatic chromatin in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:25–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pierconti F, et al. Hypochromatic large urothelial cells in urine cytology are indicative of high grade urothelial carcinoma. APMIS. 2018;126:705–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Pambuccian SE. A tale of atypia: what can we learn from this? Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:376–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rai S, et al. A quest for accuracy: evaluation of The Paris System in diagnosis of urothelial carcinomas. J Cytol. 2019;36:169–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Güliz A. Barkan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Barkan, G.A. et al. (2022). Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC). In: Wojcik, E.M., Kurtycz, D.F., Rosenthal, D.L. (eds) The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88686-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88686-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-88685-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-88686-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)