Atypical urothelial cells (AUC): A Bethesda-derived wording applicable to urinary cytopathology;Cellules urothéliales atypiques (AUC): une formulation inspirée du système de Bethesda applicable à la cytologie urinaire

Annales de Pathologie

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 11-17

  Piaton, Éric ^a   Advenier, Anne Sophie ^b   Benaïm, Gilles ^c   Petrucci, Myriam Decaussin ^c   Lechevallier, Florence Mege ^b   Ruffion, Alain ^c  

^a HOSPICES CIVILS DE LYON   (France)

^b EDOUARD HERRIOT HOSPITAL   (France)

^c CENTRE HOSPITALIER LYON SUD   (France)

Author keywords

Bladder tumours; Follow up; High grade; Urinary cytology; Urothelial atypias

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATYPICAL UROTHELIAL CELL; CANCER GRADING; CELL NUCLEUS MEMBRANE; CYSTOSCOPY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EPITHELIUM CELL; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PROGNOSIS; URINALYSIS; URINE CYTOLOGY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BCG VACCINE; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, TRANSITIONAL CELL; CELL DIVISION; CELL NUCLEOLUS; CELL NUCLEUS; CHROMATIN; CYSTOSCOPY; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PROGNOSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; URINARY BLADDER; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS; URINE; UROTHELIUM;

EID: 79951850780     PISSN: 02426498     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.annpat.2010.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bastacky S., Ibrahim S., Wilczinski S.P., Murphy W.M. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1999, 87:118-128.
2. Murphy W.M. What's the trouble with cytology?. J Urol 2006, 176:2343-2346.
3. Molinié V., Vieillefond C. Apport de la cytologie urinaire (méthodologie, intérêt et limites). Rev Fr Labor 2008, 398:25-36.
4. Novicki D.E., Stern J.A., Nemec R., Lidner T.K. Cost-effective evaluation of indeterminate urinary cytology. J Urol 1998, 160:734-736.
5. Raab S.S., Grzybicki D.M., Vrbin C.M., Geisinger K.M. Urine cytology discrepancies. Frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol 2007, 127:946-953.
6. Epstein J.I., Amin M.B., Reuter V.R., Mostofi F.K. The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Bladder Consensus Conference Committee. Am J Surg Pathol 1998, 22:1435-1448.
7. Eble J.N., Sauter G., Epstein J.I., Sesterhenn I.A.E. World Health Organization classification of tumours: pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs 2004, IARC Press, Lyon.
8. Cheng L., Cheville J.C., Neumann R.M., Bostwick D.G. Flat intraepithelial lesions of the urinary bladder. Cancer 2000, 88:625-631.
9. Cheng L., Lopez-Beltran A., MacLennan G.T., Montironi R., Bostwick D.G. Neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Urologic surgical pathology 2008, 259-352. Elsevier/Mosby, Philadelphia. 2nd ed. D.G. Bostwick, L. Cheng (Eds.).
10. Hodges K.B., Lopez-Beltran A., Davidson D.D., Montironi R., Cheng L. Urothelial dysplasia and other flat lesions of the urinary bladder: clinicopathologic and molecular features. Human Pathol 2010, 41:155-162.
11. Glatz K., Willi N., Glatz D., Barascud A., Grilli B., Herzog M., et al. An international telecytologic quiz on urinary cytology reveals educational deficits and absence of a commonly used classification. Am J Clin Pathol 2006, 126:294-301.
12. Kapur U., Venkataraman G., Wojcik E.M. Diagnostic significance of "atypia" in instrumented versus voided urine specimens. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2008, 114:270-274.
13. Mouriquand J. Differential nucleolar staining affinity with a modified Papanicolaou procedure. Stain Technol 1981, 56:215-219.
14. Murphy W.M. Current status of urinary cytology in the evaluation of bladder neoplasms. Hum Pathol 1990, 21:886-896.
15. Boulanger J.C., Sevestre H. ASCUS: état des lieux. Gynecol Ostet Fertil 2006, 34:44-48.
16. Solomon D., Davey D., Kurman R., Moriarty A., O'Connor D., Prey M., et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002, 287:2114-2119.
17. Amling C.L. Diagnosis and management of superficial bladder cancer. Curr Probl Cancer 2001, 25:219-278.
18. Malik S.N., Murphy W.M. Monitoring patients for bladder neoplasms: what can be expected of urinary cytology consultations in clinical practice. Urology 1999, 54:62-66.
19. Piaton E., Daniel L., Verrielle V., Dalifard I., Zimmermann U., Renaudin K., et al. Improved detection of urothelial carcinomas with fluorescence immunocytochemistry (uCyt+ assay) and urinary cytology. Results of a French prospective multicenter study. Lab Invest 2003, 83:845-852.
20. Raitanen M.P., Aine R., Rintala E., Kallio J., Rajala P., Juusela H., et al. Differences between local and review urinary cytology in diagnosis of bladder cancer. An interobserver multicenter analysis. Eur Urol 2002, 41:284-289.
21. Tribukait B. Flow cytometry in surgical pathology and cytology of tumors of the genitourinary tract. Advances in Clinical Cytology 1984, II. Masson, New York, p. 163-89.
22. Lokeshwar V.B., Habuchi T., Barton Grossman H., Murphy W.M., Hautmann S.H., Hemstreet G.P., et al. Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 2005, 66:35-63.
23. Skacel M., Fahmy M., Brainard J.A., Pettay J.D., Biscotti C.V., Liou L.S., et al. Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay detects transitional cell carcinoma in the majority of patients with bladder cancer and atypical or negative urine cytology. J Urol 2003, 169:2101-2105.
24. Curry J.L., Wojcik E.M. The effects of the current WHO/ISUP bladder neoplasm classification system on urinary cytology results. Cancer Cytopathol 2002, 96:140-145.
25. Nabi G., Greene D.R., O'Donnell How important is urinary cytology in the diagnosis of urological malignancies?. Eur Urol 2003, 43:632-636.
26. Gaston K.E., Pruthi R.S. Value of urinary cytology in the diagnosis and management of urinary tract malignancies. Urology 2004, 63:1009-1016.
27. Garbar C., Mascaux C., Wespes E. Is urinary tract cytology still useful for diagnosis of bladder carcinomas? A large series of 592 bladder washings using a five-category classification of different cytological diagnoses. Cytopathology 2007, 18:79-83.
28. Renshaw A.A. Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2000, 90:222-229.
29. Deshpande V., McKee G.T. Analysis of atypical urine cytology in a tertiary care center. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2005, 105:468-475.
30. Koss L.G. Tumors of the urinary tract and prostate in urinary sediment. Diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases 1992, J.B. Lippincott Co, Philadelphia, p. 951-63. 4th ed.
31. Gupta K., Dey P. Cell cannibalism: diagnostic marker of malignancy. Diagn Cytopathol 2003, 28:86-87.
32. Wright R.G., Halford J.A. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001, 12:306-313.
33. Piaton E., Faÿnel J., Hutin K., Ranchin M.C., Cottier M. Conventional liquid based techniques versus Cytyc Thinprep* processing of urinary samples: a qualitative approach. BMC Clinical Pathology 2005, 5:9. http://www.biomedcentral.com/.
34. Laucirica R., Bentz J.S., Souers R.J., Wasserman P.G., Crothers B.A., Clayton A.C., et al. Do liquid-based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases? Observations from the college of american pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in nongynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010, 134:19-22.