Analysis of the Cytomorphological Features in Atypical Urine Specimens following Application of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the use of The Paris System (TPS) for Reporting Urinary Cytopathology and examines the performance of individual and combined morphological features in atypical urine cytologies. METHODS: We reviewed 118 atypical cytologies with subsequent bladder biopsies for the presence of several morphological features and reclassified them into Paris System categories. The sensitivity and specificity of individual and combined features were calculated along with the risk of malignancy. RESULTS: An elevated nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio was only predictive of malignancy if seen in single cells, while irregular nuclear borders, hyperchromasia, and coarse granular chromatin were predictive in single cells and in groups. Identification of coarse chromatin alone yielded a malignancy risk comparable to 2-feature combinations. The use of TPS criteria identified the specimens at a higher risk of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of TPS criteria, suggesting that the presence of coarse chromatin is more specific than other individual features, and confirming that cytologic atypia is more worrisome in single cells than in groups.

The impact of subdividing the "atypical" category for urinary cytology on patient management.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study is to determine the impact of subdividing the "atypical" cytology interpretation into two groups: Atypical urothelial cells of uncertain significance (AUC-US) and Atypical urothelial cells suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (AUC-H/SHGUC), on management of patients with no prior history of UC. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This is a retrospective study of "atypical" urine cytology with subsequent tissue examination occurring within six months. Cytology reports with "atypical" interpretation were reclassified into AUS-UC and AUC-H based on morphologic features identified by the Johns Hopkins system and the Paris system for urine cytology. Follow-up and categorical outcomes were compared between the reclassified AUC-US and AUC-H groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P < 0.4539) in the rate of cytology follow-up, the follow-up cytology result (P < 0.1845), or time between follow-up cytologies (P < 0.0869) between the reclassified atypical group of AUC-H and AUC-US. There was a significant association (P < 0.0001) of rate of malignancy with the reclassified AUC-H (87.18%) compared to the AUC-US (58.68%) groups. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in follow-up between the AUC-H and AUC-US, however there was a difference in the rates of malignancy in the two groups. The AUC-H group is similar to the SHGUC group of the Paris system and can be considered as such, whereas the AUC-US group should continue to be considered atypical. We conclude that reclassification of the "atypical" category into AUC-US and AUC-H/SHGUC can reduce the rate of atypia and help in focused follow-up and targeted management. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2016;44:477-482. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Two-tiered subdivision of atypia on urine cytology can improve patient follow-up and optimize the utility of UroVysion.

BACKGROUND: The annual incidence of urothelial carcinoma continues to increase, and it is projected that greater than 70,000 new cases will occur in the year 2015. However, as much as 23% of cytologic specimens will demonstrate some degree of atypia without meeting the criteria for urothelial carcinoma and thus will be reported as atypical. METHODS: The authors conducted 2 laboratory information searches and 1 survey. In total, 311 patients who had atypical cytology-biopsy pairs available were identified from the initial data search. The second data search identified 942 patients who had fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results available. RESULTS: There was fair agreement between FISH results and cytology results (κ = 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.41). The analysis did not reveal any benefits of using additional atypical subcategories beyond the 2 suggested in the literature. It was determined that 2 strategies would provide an optimal balance: standardizing patient management and facilitating the adoption of universally recognized templates. CONCLUSIONS: When combining cytology and the 2-tiered atypical classification system with FISH testing, a marked increase in sensitivity and an accompanying decrease in specificity were observed compared with either test individually. Thus, highly sensitive FISH testing may help to identify high-risk patients among those in the group with uncertain atypical findings.

Fine-needle aspiration cytology of mammary analog secretory carcinoma masquerading as low-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma: case report with a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The primary role of fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of salivary gland masses is to determine the underlying process and guide further management. The objective of our study is to provide a comprehensive review of cytologic features and ancillary studies of mammary analog secretory carcinoma (MASC), discuss differential diagnosis and review recent advances in the understanding of its biologic behavior. CASE: A 23-year-old female underwent ultrasound-guided FNA of a slowly enlarging parotid mass. Smears displayed branching clusters of bland vacuolated polygonal cells in a secretory proteinaceous background. Eosinophilic cells with eccentric nuclei and inconspicuous nucleoli were also noted. Based on positive intracellular mucin staining and the lack of extracellular-matrix material, the cytologic diagnosis rendered was 'suspicious for low grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma'. Superficial parotidectomy revealed an MASC confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies for ETV6 translocation. CONCLUSION: MASC should be included in the differential diagnosis of mucinous salivary lesions with cystic changes on FNA. Immunohistochemistry for mammaglobin and S-100 helps in excluding morphologic mimics. FISH helps to confirm the diagnosis. Age alone should not be a deterrent in diagnosing a carcinoma.