Objective: Reported urine cytology accuracy, particular sensitivity, is highly variable. We evaluated the accuracy of urinary cytology for primary bladder cancer using population data linkage to provide valid estimates. Study Design: Consecutive cytology tests processed through a major service between January 2000 and December 2004 were linked to a regional population cancer registry (allowing outcome ascertainment). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using different thresholds, based on standardized reporting categories (C1 = negative, C2 = reactive, C3 = atypical, C4 = suspicious, C5 = malignant, Cx = inadequate). Results: Cancer registry matching of 2,594 tests revealed 130 incident bladder cancers, of which 97 occurred within 12 months of cytology and were included in calculating accuracy. Sensitivity (C3–C5 considered positive) ranged between 40.2 and 42.3%, and specificity was 93.7–94.1%. If C3 results are counted as negative, sensitivity estimates reduced to 24.7–26.0%. The positive predictive value of a C3, C4 or C5 report was 11.7, 39.2, and 66.6%, respectively. High tumor grade was associated with significantly higher sensitivity compared to low and intermediate grades combined (p = 0.02). Conclusion: Urine cytology is highly specific but has intermediate sensitivity, indicating that it has a role in adjunct diagnosis, but not in screening for primary bladder cancer. C3 results should be considered ‘positive’ and further investigated, and all positive results should prompt further intervention.

Keywords:
Accuracy, Bladder carcinoma, Urine cytology
1.
Curling M, Broome G, Hendry WF: How accurate is urine cytology? J Royal Soc Med 1986;79:336–338.
2.
Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM: The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer Cytopathol 1999;87:118–128.
3.
Brown FM: Urine cytology: it is still the gold standard for screening? Urol Clin North Am 2000;27:25–37.
4.
Bassi P, De Marco V, De Lisa A, Mancini M, Pinto F, Bertoloni R, Longo F: Non-invasive diagnostic tests for bladder cancer: a review of the literature. Urol Int 2005;75:193–200.
5.
Lokeshwar VB, Soloway MS: Current bladder tumor tests: does their projected utility fulfill clinical necessity? J Urol 2001;165:1067–1077.
6.
Raitanen MP, Aine R, Rintala E, Kallio J, Rajala P, Juusela H, Tammela TL; Finn Bladder Group: Differences between local and review urinary cytology in diagnosis of bladder cancer. An interobserver multicenter analysis. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2002;36:213–217.
7.
Rathert P: Urinary cytology in cases of bladder cancer: a critical evaluation (in German). Urologe A 2003;42:908–911.
8.
Messing EM, Teot L, Korman H, Underhill E, Barker E, Stork B, Qian J, Bostwick DG: Performance of urine test in patients monitored for recurrence of bladder cancer: a multicenter study in the United States. J Urol 2005;174:1238–1241.
9.
Whisnant RE, Bastacky SI, Ohori NP: Cytologic diagnosis of low-grade papillary urothelial neoplasms (low malignant potential and low-grade carcinoma) in the context of the 1998 WHO/ISUP classification. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:186–190.
10.
Curry JL, Wojcik EM: The effect of the current World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathologists bladder neoplasm classification system on urine cytology results. Cancer Cytopathol. 2002;96:140–145.
11.
Deshpande V, McKee GT: Analysis of atypical urine cytology in a tertiary care center. Cancer Cytopathol 2005;105:468–475.
12.
Paci E, Crocetti E, Benvenuti A, Buzzoni C, Caldarella A, Giovannetti L, Giusti F, Intrieri T, Manneschi G, Miccinesi G, Sacchettini C: Cancer incidence in Italy, Florence and Prato (1998–2002); in Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, Storm H, Ferlay J, Heanue M, Boyle P (eds): Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Lyon, IARC Scientific Publications, vol 9 (160), 2007.
13.
Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A: The 2004 WHO classification of bladder tumors: a summary and commentary. Int J Surg Path 2005;13:143–153.
14.
Cecchini S, Iossa A, Bonardi R, Ciatto S, Cariaggi P: Comparing two modalities of management of women with cytologic evidence of squamous or glandular atypia: early repeat cytology or colposcopy. Tumori 1997;83:732–734.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.