Objective: To find out the utility of The Paris System (TPS) in reporting urine cytology and to compare it with the reporting system currently used in our laboratory. Study Design: This retrospective study was undertaken over a period of 1 year during which slides of all the urine specimens sent for cytological examination were retrieved from our laboratory filling system. They were blindly reviewed and reclassified according to TPS. Surgical follow-up was obtained from the uropathology services of our department. Results: A total of 176 cases were meticulously reviewed. The mean age of the patients was 52 years, and 71% of cases presented with hematuria. Histopathological follow-up was available in 34 cases. Reporting by TPS detected 13.0% high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) and 5.1% atypical urothelial cells versus 7.3 and 11.9% by the current reporting system, respectively. The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy for detecting HGUC of TPS were higher than those of our reporting system. Conclusion: TPS has increased the rate of detection of HGUC and reduced the rate of reporting “atypical” urothelial cells. TPS has also standardized the diagnostic criteria, thereby bringing uniformity and reproducibility into the system of reporting for urine cytology.

Rosenthal D, Wojcik E, Kurtycz D: The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, ed 1. Switzerland, Springer, 2016, pp 1-157.
Pattari SK, Dey P: Urine: beyond cytology for detection of malignancy. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:139-142.
Bhatia A, Dey P, Kakkar N, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R: Malignant atypical cell in urine cytology: a diagnostic dilemma. Cytojournal 2006;3:28.
Gupta P, Jain M, Kapoor K, Muruganandham K, Shrivastava A, Mandhani A: Impact of age and gender on the clinicopathological characteristics of bladder cancer. Indian J Urol 2009;25:207-210.
Raab S, Grzybicki DM, Vrbin C, Geisinger KR: Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;127:946-953.
Cheng L, Neumaan RM, Nehra A, Spotts BE, Weaver AL, Bostwick DG: Cancer heterogenicity and its biological implications in the grading of urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 2000,88:1663-1670.
Brimo F, Vollmer R, 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.
Cibas E, Ducatman B, Renshaw A: Cytology: Diagnostic Principles and Clinical Correlates, ed 4. Philadelphia, Saunders, 2014, pp 105-120.
Papanicolaou GN, Marshall VF: Urine sediment smears as a diagnostic procedure in cancers of the urinary tract. Science 1945;101:519-520.
Owens CL, VandenBussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Rosenthal DL: A review of reporting systems and terminology for urine cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:9-14.
Piaton E, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Mege-Lechevallier F, Advenier AS, Devonec M, Ruffion A: 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 2014;25:27-38.
Sternberg I, Rona R, Olsfanger S, Lew S, Leibovitch I: The clinical significance of class III (suspicious) urine cytology. Cytopathology 2013;121:5-20.
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.