Urinary Cytology

5 - Urinary Cytology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021

Güliz A. Barkan ,

Stefan E. Pambuccian and

Edited by

Vijaya B. Reddy and

Ji-Weon Park: Affiliation:
Rush University, Chicago
Paolo Gattuso: Affiliation:
Rush University, Chicago
Vijaya B. Reddy: Affiliation:
Rush University, Chicago
Shahla Masood: Affiliation:
University of Florida

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Urine cytology specimens make up an important percentage of the nongynecologic case load in most cytopathology laboratories. This type of specimen has been labeled as “challenging” due to a lack of quantitative definition of adequacy, the subjective nature of “atypia”, marked degenerative changes seen especially in voided urine specimens, and the unrealistic expectation of making a low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC) diagnosis.

Type: Chapter
Information: Differential Diagnosis in Cytopathology , pp. 160 - 179

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108907422 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Coleman, DV. The cytodiagnosis of human polyoma virus infection. Acta Cytol 1975; 19: 93–96.Google Scholar

deVries, CR, Freiha, FS. Hemorrhagic cystitis: a review. J Urol 1990; 143(1): 1–9.Google Scholar

Droese, M, Voeth, C. Cytologic features of seminal vesicle epithelium in aspiration biopsy smears of the prostate. Acta Cytol 1976; 20: 120–125.Google Scholar

Kahan, AV, Coleman, DV, Koss, LG. Activation of human polyoma virus infection. Detection by cytologic techniques. Am J Clin Pathol 1980; 74: 326–332.CrossRef Google Scholar

Koss, LG, Sherman, AB, Eppich, E. Image analysis and DNA content of urothelial cells infected with human polyoma virus. Anal Quant Cytol 1984; 6: 89–94.Google Scholar

Koss, LG, ed. Cytologic manifestation of benign disorders affecting cells of the lower urinary tract. In: Diagnostic Cytology of the Urinary Tract: With Histopathologic and Clinical Correlation, 1st edn. Lippincott-Raven:Philadelphia, NY, 1996: 52–55.Google Scholar

Koss, LG, ed. The urinary tract in the absence of cancer. In: Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases, 5th edn. JB Lippincott: Philadelphia, NY, 2006: 739–776.Google Scholar

Lee, HJ, Pyo, JW, Choi, EH, et al. Isolation of adenovirus type 7 from the urine of children with acute hemorrhagic cystitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1996; 15(7): 633–634.Google Scholar

Wojcik, EM, Bassler, TJ, Orozco, R. DNA ploidy of seminal vesicle cells. A potential diagnostic pitfall in urine cytology. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol 1999; 21: 29–34.Google Scholar

Wojcik, EM, Miller, MC, Wright, BC, et al. Comparative analysis of DNA content in Polyoma Virus infected urothelial cells, urothelial dysplasia and transitional cell carcinoma. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1997; 19: 430–436.Google Scholar PubMed

Yuste, RS, Frías, C, López, A, Vallejo, C. Diagnostic value of JC/BK virus antibody immunohistochemistry staining in urine samples from posttransplant immunosuppressed patients in relation to polyomavirus reactivation. Acta Cytol 2008; 52(2): 191–195.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Highman, W, Wilson, E. Urine cytology in patients with calculi. J Clin Pathol 1982; 35: 350–356.Google Scholar

Rubben, H, Hering, F, Dahm, HH, Lutzeyer, W. Value of exfoliative urinary cytology for differentiation between uric acid stone and tumor of upper urinary tract. Urol 1982; 22: 571–573.Google Scholar

Bakhos, R, Shankey, TV, Fisher, S. et al. Comparative analysis of DNA flow cytometry and cytology of urine barbotages – review of discordant cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2000; 22: 65–69.Google Scholar

Barkan, GA, Wojcik, EM. Genitourinary cytopathology (kidney and urinary tract). Cancer Treat Res 2014; 160: 149–183.Google Scholar

Bassily, NH, Vallorosi, CJ, Akdas, G, et al. Coordinate expression of cytokeratins CK7 and CK 20 in prostate adenocarcinoma and bladder urothelial carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 2000; 113: 383–388.Google Scholar

Bastacky, S, Ibrahim, S, Wilczynski, SP, Murphy, WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999; 87: 118–128.Google Scholar

Bhatia, A, Dey, P, Kakkar, N, et al. Malignant atypical cell in urine cytology: a diagnostic dilemma. Cytojournal 2006, 3:28.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brown, FM. Urine cytology. Is it still the gold standard for screening?Urol Clin North Am 2000; 27: 25–37.Google Scholar

Curry, JL, Wojcik, EM. The effects of the current WHO/ISUP bladder neoplasm classification system on urine cytology results. Cancer Cytopathol 2002; 96(3): 140–145.Google Scholar

Epstein, JI, Amin, MB, Reuter, VR, Mostofi, FK, Bladder Consensus Conference Committee: The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Am J Surg Pathol 1998; 22: 1435–1448.Google Scholar

Jackson, J, Barkan, GA, Kapur, U, Wojcik, EM. Cytological and cystoscopic predictors of recurrence and progression in patients with low-grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013; 121(7): 398–402.Google Scholar

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: 100–106.Google Scholar

Murphy, WM. Current status of urinary cytology in the evaluation of bladder neoplasms. Hum Pathol 1990; 21: 886–896.Google Scholar

Muus-Ubago, J, Wojcik, EM, Barkan, GA. Evaluation of atypical urine cytology progression to malignancy. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121(7): 387–391.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Palmer, D, Lallu, S, Matheson, P, et al. Karyomegalic interstitial nephritis: a pitfall in urine cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35(3): 179–182.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pantanowitz, L, Otis, CN. Cystitis glandularis. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36(3): 181–182.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Piaton, E, Advenier, AS, Benaim, G, et al. [Atypical urothelial cells (AUC): A Bethesda-derived wording applicable to urinary cytopathology], Annal Pathol 2011; 31: 11–17.Google Scholar

Piaton, E, Decaussin-Petrucci, M, Mege-Lechevallier, F, et al. 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 2013; 25(1): 27–38.Google Scholar

Raab, SS, Grzybicki, DM, Vrbin, CM, Geisinger, KR. Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol 2007; 127: 946–953.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Raab, SS, Lenel, JC, Cohen, MB. Low grade transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cytologic diagnosis by key features as identified by logistic regression analysis. Cancer 1994; 74: 1621–1626.Google Scholar

Renshaw, AA. Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens. Cancer Cytopathol 2000; 90: 222–229.Google Scholar

Rosenthal, DL, Vandenbussche, CJ, Burroughs, FH, et al. The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples: part I-creating the template. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 15–20.Google Scholar

Suh, N, Yang, XJ, Tretiakova, MS, et al. Value of CDX2, villin, and alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase immunostains in the distinction between primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder and secondary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2005; 18(9): 1217–1222.Google Scholar

VandenBussche, CJ, Sathiyamoorthy, S, Owens, CL, et al. The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples: parts II and III: improving the predictability of indeterminate results in urinary cytologic samples: an outcomes and cytomorphologic study. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 21–28.Google Scholar

Watarai, Y, Satoh, H, Matubara, M, et al. Comparison of urine cytology between the ileal conduit and Indiana pouch. Acta Cytol 2000; 44: 748–751.Google Scholar

Wojcik, EM, Bassler, TJ, Orozco, R. DNA ploidy of seminal vesicle cells. A potential diagnostic pitfall in urine cytology. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol 1999; 21: 29–34.Google Scholar

Wojcik, EM, Bridges, VJ, Miller, MC, O’Dowd, GJ. The influence of season on the incidence of DNA hypodiploidy in urinary cytology. Cytometry (Comm Clin Cytom) 2000; 42: 218–220.Google Scholar

Wojcik, EM, Brownlie, RJ, Bassler, TJ, Miller, MC. Superficial urothelial cells (umbrella cells) – a potential cause of abnormal DNA ploidy results in urine specimens. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol 2000; 22: 411–415.Google Scholar

Al-Agha, OM, Khader, SN, Cajigas, A, et al. Fine needle aspiration of urethral recurrence of urothelial carcinoma after radical cystectomy presenting as a perineal mass: a case report. Acta Cytol. 2008; 52(1): 94–98.Google Scholar

Cantley, RL, Kapur, U, Truong, L, et al. Fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a review. Diagn Cytopathol 2012; 40: 173–178.Google Scholar

Hida, CA, Gupta, PK. Cercariform cells: are they specific for transitional cell carcinoma? Cancer 1999; 87(2): 69–74.Google Scholar

Renshaw, AA, Madge, R. Cercariform cells for helping distinguish transitional cell carcinoma from non-small cell lung carcinoma in fine needle aspirates. Acta Cytol 1997; 41(4): 999–1007.Google Scholar