The main purpose of urine cytology is to detect high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). With this principle in mind, The Paris System (TPS) Working Group, composed of cytopathologists, surgical pathologists, and urologists, has proposed and published a standardized reporting system that includes specific diagnostic categories and cytomorphologic criteria for the reliable diagnosis of HGUC. This paper outlines the essential elements of TPS and the process that led to the formation and rationale of the reporting system. The Paris System Working Group, organized at the 2013 International Congress of Cytology, conceived a standardized platform on which to base cytologic interpretation of urine samples. The widespread dissemination of this approach to cytologic examination and reporting of urologic samples and the scheme's universal acceptance by pathologists and urologists is critical for its success. For urologists, understanding the diagnostic criteria, their clinical implications, and the limitations of TPS is essential if they are to utilize urine cytology and noninvasive ancillary tests in a thoughtful and practical manner. This is the first international/inclusive attempt at standardizing urinary cytology. The success of TPS will depend on the pathology and urology communities working collectively to improve this seminal paradigm shift, and optimize the impact on patient care.

Keywords:
Bladder cancer, Urine, Standardized reporting terminology, The Paris System
1.
Blick CG, Nazir SA, Mallett S, et al: Evaluation of diagnostic strategies for bladder cancer using computed tomography (CT) urography, flexible cystoscopy and voided urine cytology: results for 778 patients from a hospital haematuria clinic. BJU Int 2012;110:84-94.
2.
Layfield LJ, Elsheikh TM, Fili A, Nayar R, Shidham V; Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology: Review of the state of the art and recommendations of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for urinary cytology procedures and reporting : the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Practice Guidelines Task Force. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:24-30.
3.
Netto GJ: Molecular genetics and genomics progress in urothelial bladder cancer. Semin Diagn Pathol 2013;30:313-320.
4.
Cheng L, Zhang S, MacLennan GT, Williamson SR, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R: Bladder cancer: translating molecular genetic insights into clinical practice. Hum Pathol 2011;42:455-481.
5.
Knowles MA: Molecular pathogenesis of bladder cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2008;13:287-297.
6.
van Rhijn BW: Combining molecular and pathologic data to prognosticate non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2012;30:518-523.
7.
Redman R, Yoder BJ, Massoll NA: Perceptions of diagnostic terminology and cytopathologic reporting of fine-needle aspiration biopsies of thyroid nodules: a survey of clinicians and pathologists. Thyroid 2006;16:1003-1008.
8.
Lankshear S, Srigley J, McGowan T, Yurcan M, Sawka C: Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reports - so what and who cares? A population-based satisfaction survey of 970 pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:1599-1602.
9.
Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ: Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1040-1046.
10.
Troxel DB: The pathology report: reducing malpractice risk. 2005. http://www.thedoctors.com/KnowledgeCenter/PatientSafety/ [serial online] (accessed March 10, 2016).
11.
Statistics NCoVaH, Information for health: A Strategy for Building the National Health Information Infrastructure. Report and Recommendations from the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. Washington, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.
12.
Grapsa D, Ekaterini P: Standardized categorical reporting of cytopathology results: the strengths and weaknesses of a constantly evolving and expanding system. Diagn Cytopathol 2013;41:917-921.
13.
Ali SZ, Leteurtre E: The official nomenclature and terminologies in diagnostic cytopathology: history, evolution, applicability and future. Ann Pathol 2012;32:e3-e7, 389-393.
14.
The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989;262:931-934.
15.
Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al: ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:714-718.
16.
Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, et al: 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:295-304.
17.
Stoler MH, Castle PE, Solomon D, Schiffman M: American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. The expanded use of HPV testing in gynecologic practice per ASCCP-guided management requires the use of well-validated assays. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;127:335-337.
18.
Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al: 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:829-846.
19.
Schiffman M, Solomon D: Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:946-949.
20.
Crippa S, Mazzucchelli L, Cibas ES, Ali SZ: The Bethesda System for reporting thyroid fine-needle aspiration specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;134:343-344, author reply 345.
21.
Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et al: The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-Associated Lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:1266-1297.
22.
Crothers BA, Tench WD, Schwartz MR, et al: Guidelines for the reporting of nongynecologic cytopathology specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1743-1756.
23.
Mazhari R, Kimmel PL: Hematuria: an algorithmic approach to finding the cause. Cleve Clin J Med 2002;69:870, 872-874, 876 passim.
24.
Hall MC, Chang SS, Dalbagni G, et al: Guideline for the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (stages Ta, T1, and Tis): 2007 update. J Urol 2007;178:2314-2330.
25.
Babjuk M, Burger M, Zigeuner R, et al: EAU guidelines on nonmuscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2013. Eur Urol 2013;64:639-653.
26.
Clark PE, Agarwal N, Biagioli MC, et al: Bladder cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013;11:446-475.
27.
van der Aa MN, Steyerberg EW, Bangma C, van Rhijn BW, Zwarthoff EC, van der Kwast TH: Cystoscopy revisited as the gold standard for detecting bladder cancer recurrence: diagnostic review bias in the randomized, prospective CEFUB trial. J Urol 2010;183:76-80.
28.
Khan R, Hussain H, Pambuccian S, Wojcik E, Barkan G: What is the negative predictive value of urinary tract cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015;4:S21-S22.
29.
Aharony S, Baniel J, Yossepowitch O: Clinically unconfirmed positive urinary cytology: diagnostic implications and oncological outcomes. BJU Int 2011;108:E179-E183.
30.
Glatz K, Willi N, Glatz D, et al: An international telecytologic quiz on urinary cytology reveals educational deficits and absence of a commonly used classification system. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;126:294-301.
31.
Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewicz J, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR: Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 2003;47:605-610.
32.
Solomon D, Nayar R: The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes, ed 2. New York, Springer, 2004.
33.
Goellner JR, Gharib H, Grant CS, Johnson DA: Fine needle aspiration cytology of the thyroid, 1980-1986. Acta Cytol 1987;31:587-590.
34.
Grant CS, Hay ID, Gough IR, McCarthy PM, Goellner JR: Long-term follow-up of patients with benign thyroid fine-needle aspiration cytologic diagnoses. Surgery 1989;106:980-985, discussion 985-986.
35.
Cibas ES, Ali SZ: The Bethesda System For Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:658-665.
36.
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ, et al: Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:338-350.
37.
Alsharif M, Andrade RS, Groth SS, Stelow EB, Pambuccian SE: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial fine-needle aspiration: the University of Minnesota experience, with emphasis on usefulness, adequacy assessment, and diagnostic difficulties. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;130:434-443.
38.
Nayak A, Sugrue C, Koenig S, Wasserman PG, Hoda S, Morgenstern NJ: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspirate (EBUS-TBNA): a proposal for on-site adequacy criteria. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:128-137.
39.
Cameron SE, Andrade RS, Pambuccian SE: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration cytology: a state of the art review. Cytopathology 2010;21:6-26.
40.
Prather J, Arville B, Chatt G, et al: Evidence-based adequacy criteria for urinary bladder barbotage cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015;4:57-62.
41.
VandenBussche CJ, Rosenthal DL, Olson MT: Adequacy in voided urine cytology specimens: the role of volume and a repeat void upon predictive values for high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol 2015;124:174-180.
42.
Barkan GA: Enough Is enough: adequacy of voided urine cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2015;124:163-166.
43.
Wojcik EM: What should not be reported as atypia in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015;4:30-36.
44.
Renshaw AA: Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens. Cancer 2000;90:222-229.
45.
Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Case B, Aprikian A, Kassouf W, Auger M: Accuracy of urine cytology and the significance of an atypical category. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:785-793.
46.
Piaton E, Advenier AS, Benaim G, Petrucci MD, Lechevallier FM, Ruffion A: Atypical urothelial cells (AUC): a Bethesda-derived wording applicable to urinary cytopathology (in French). Ann Pathol 2011;31:11-17.
47.
Rosenthal DL, Vandenbussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Sathiyamoorthy S, Guan H, Owens C: The Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples: part I-creating the template. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:15-20.
48.
McCroskey Z, Bahar B, Hu Z, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA: Subclassifying atypia in urine cytology: what are the helpful features? J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015;4:183-189.
49.
Koss LG, Melamed MR, Koss LG: Koss' Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases, ed 5. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2006.
50.
Papanicolaou GN, Marshall VF: Urine sediment smears as a diagnostic procedure in cancers of the urinary tract. Science 1945;101:519-520.
51.
Reid MD, Osunkoya AO, Siddiqui MT, Looney SW: Accuracy of grading of urothelial carcinoma on urine cytology: an analysis of interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2012;5:882-891.
52.
Raab SS, Slagel DD, Jensen CS, et al: Low-grade transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: application of select cytologic criteria to improve diagnostic accuracy [corrected]. Mod Pathol 1996;9:225-232.
53.
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.
54.
Xin W, Raab SS, Michael CW: Low-grade urothelial carcinoma: reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29:125-129.
55.
Murphy WM, Soloway MS, Jukkola AF, Crabtree WN, Ford KS: Urinary cytology and bladder cancer. The cellular features of transitional cell neoplasms. Cancer 1984;53:1555-1565.
56.
McCroskey Z, Pambuccian SE, Kleitherms S, et al: Accuracy and interobserver variability of the cytologic diagnosis of low-grade urothelial carcinoma in instrumented urinary tract cytology specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2015;144:902-908.
57.
Sokolova IA, Halling KC, Jenkins RB, et al: The development of a multitarget, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn 2000;2:116-123.
58.
Dimashkieh H, Wolff DJ, Smith TM, Houser PM, Nietert PJ, Yang J: Evaluation of urovysion and cytology for bladder cancer detection: a study of 1,835 paired urine samples with clinical and histologic correlation. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:591-597.
59.
Tapia C, Glatz K, Obermann EC, et al: Evaluation of chromosomal aberrations in patients with benign conditions and reactive changes in urinary cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2011;119:404-410.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.