Skip to main content

Abstract

Atypia is admittedly a difficult topic to cover no matter what the organ system it is in. The most important reason for this is its subjective nature – it is in the eye of the beholder. In keeping with the mantra of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, the goal for the “atypical urothelial cells” (AUC) category is to capture the cases worrisome for high-grade urothelial carcinoma that fall short of the “suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma” (SHGUC) category. It is important to ensure that known causes of atypia such as polyomavirus change, treatment effect, etc., are classified as “negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma” (NHGUC), and not under the AUC category. In order to make this a tangible and more objective category we have set forth criteria for AUC using four main cytomorphologic features: nuclear to cytoplasmic (N/C) ratio, nuclear chromasia, chromatin pattern, and features of the chromatinic rim. From a clinical standpoint, whenever the diagnosis of AUC is rendered on a case, this inconclusive category may create confusion and anxiety in the patient, and may lead to unnecessary procedures. Therefore, we recommend that the “AUC” interpretation should be kept at a minimum, and not be used as a waste basket.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pambuccian SE. What is atypia? Use, misuse and overuse of the term atypia in diagnostic cytopathology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wojcik EM. What should not be reported as atypia in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:30–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cochand-Priollet B, Schmitt FC, Tötsch M, Vielh P, European Federation of Cytology Societies’ Scientific Committee. The Bethesda terminology for reporting thyroid cytopathology: from theory to practice in Europe. Acta Cytol. 2011;55:507–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sherman ME, Dasgupta A, Schiffman M, Nayar R, Solomon D. The Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST): a web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 System for classifying cervical cytology. Cancer. 2007;111:15–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barasch S, Choi M, Stewart III J, Das K. Significance of atypical category in voided urine specimens prepared by liquid-based technology: experience of a single institution. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2014;3:118–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenthal DL, VandenBussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Sathiyamoorthy S, Guan H, Owens C. The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples: part I-creating the template. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:15–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Piaton E, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Mege-Lechevallier F, Advenier AS, Devonec M, Ruffion A. Diagnostic terminology for urinary cytology reports including the new subcategories ‘atypical urothelial cells of undetermined significance’ (AUC-US) and ‘cannot exclude high grade’ (AUC-H). Cytopathology. 2014;25:27–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Muus Ubago J, Mehta V, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. Evaluation of atypical urine cytology progression to malignancy. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:387–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mokhtar GA, Al-Dousari M, Al-Ghamedi D. Diagnostic significance of atypical category in the voided urine samples: a retrospective study in a tertiary care center. Urol Ann. 2010;2:100–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Case B, Aprikian A, Kassouf W, Auger M. Accuracy of urine cytology and the significance of an atypical category. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:785–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Streeter EH, Turner GD, McCormick R, Roberts IS, Crew J. The significance of atypical urine cytology in the face of normal investigations—is extended investigation and follow-up required? Br J Med Surg Urol. 2008;1:131–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kapur U, Venkataraman G, Wojcik EM. Diagnostic significance of ‘atypia’ in instrumented versus voided urine specimens. Cancer. 2008;114:270–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhatia A, Dey P, Kakkar N, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R. Malignant atypical cell in urine cytology: a diagnostic dilemma. Cytojournal. 2006;3:28.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deshpande V, McKee GT. Analysis of atypical urine cytology in a tertiary care center. Cancer. 2005;105:468–75.

    Article  PubMed  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

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barkan, G.A. et al. (2016). Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC). In: Rosenthal, D., Wojcik, E., Kurtycz, D. (eds) The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22864-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22864-8_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22863-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22864-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics