NEXT NUM ROWS=1
Tuesday, November 24th, 2020

 

Previous
Next
Click here to begin reading
your complementary article

 
Title:
Is the Paris System Sufficient for Reporting Urinary Cytology?
Authors:  Selver Ozekinci, M.D., Zeynep Betul Erdem, M.D., and Fetin Rustu Yildiz, M.D.
  Objective: To grant speed and efficiency to clinicians in case management by minimizing interpretation differences and developing a standard among pathologists by using one of the current reporting systems, The Paris System (TPS), for reporting urinary cytology.
Study Design:
A total of 46 urinary cytology specimens evaluated from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018, were retrieved from the pathology archive and reevaluated according to TPS by 2 cytopathologists blinded to biopsy reports and were categorized according to TPS diagnostic categories. The advantages and limitations of TPS in routine practice were evaluated. Interobserver agreement in both reporting systems (previous system and TPS) and correlation with the biopsy reports were measured.
Results:
Reporting systems proposed before TPS did not attain wide acceptance because definite criteria for diagnostic categories were not defined and/or defined criteria did not achieve consensus. According to our results, there were limitations in the evaluation of specimen adequacy and implementation of the criteria for the atypical urothelial cells (AUC) and low-grade urothelial neoplasia (LGUN) diagnostic categories in TPS.
Conclusion:
To be more objective and easily applied in daily practice, revision of the morphologic criteria for AUC and LGUN categories and adequacy criteria would not only establish its widespread use but also provide easier communication with urologists.
Keywords:  adequacy, atypical urothelial cells, cytodiagnosis, the Paris system, urinary cytology, urologic neoplasms, urothelial carcinoma
   
   
  Acrobat Reader 7.0 is recommended to properly view and print the article.
Reader can be downloaded from