Objective: To demonstrate the usefulness of a direct-smear processing technique employing two-step centrifugation/fixation processing (TSCFP) in the cytoscreening of high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). Study Design: Using the T24 HGUC cell line, we compared the cell yield and the morphological preservation of preparations concurrently processed by direct-smear, SurePath, ThinPrep, and TSCFP techniques. A total of 287 urine cytology cases subjected to TSCFP over a period of 6 years were reviewed and reclassified according to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (PSRUC) and correlated with histology results. Results: TSCFP of T24 cells demonstrated good cell yield with a recovery rate of about 70%. Diagnostic features of HGUC, such as a high nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio and irregular/hyperchromatic chromatin, were better discovered in TSCFP smears than in smears prepared with the other methods. Cytological evaluation of 287 voided urine specimens revealed that the rate of unsatisfactory preparations was quite low (0.30%) and the overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for urothelial carcinoma were 0.719, 0.923, 0.973, and 0.462, respectively. Conclusion: TSCFP was able to provide adequate preparations for detecting HGUC in urine cytology and could be considered as a promising processing method according to the principal purpose of PSRUC.

Keywords:
Fixative, Centrifugation, Bladder cancer, The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, Urinary cytology
1.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69-90.
2.
Thiryayi SA, Rana DN: Urine cytopathology: challenges, pitfalls, and mimics. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:1019-1034.
3.
Gaston KE, Pruthi RS: Value of urinary cytology in the diagnosis and management of urinary tract malignancies. Urology 2004;63:1009-1016.
4.
Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczinski SP, Murphy WM: The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999;87:118-128.
5.
Rosenthal DL, Wojcik E, Kurtycz DFI (eds): The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, ed 1. Philadelphia, Springer, 2016.
6.
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.
7.
Kumar A, Kumar R, Gupta NP: Comparison of NMP22 BladderChek test and urine cytology for the detection of recurrent bladder cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2006;36:172-175.
8.
Straccia P, Bizzarro T, Fadda G, Pierconti F: Comparison between cytospin and liquid-based cytology in urine specimens classified according to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:519-523.
9.
Lee PJ, Owens CL, Lithgow MY, Jiang Z, Fischer AH: Causes of false-negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2016;44:994-999.
10.
Wright RG, Halford JA: Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;2:306-313.
11.
Voss JS, Kipp BR, Krueger AK, Clayton AC, Halling KC, Karnes RJ, Henry MR, Sebo TJ: Changes in specimen preparation method may impact urine cytologic evaluation. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;130:428-433.
12.
Piaton E, Faynel J, Hutin K, Ranchin MC, Cottier M: Conventional liquid-based techniques versus Cytyc ThinPrep processing of urinary samples: a qualitative approach. BMC ClinPathol 2005;5:9.
13.
Luthra UK, Dey P, George J, Abdulla MA, Shaheen AA, Sheikh ZA, George SS: Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:364-366.
14.
Lu DY, Nassar A, Siddiqui MT: High-grade urothelial carcinoma: comparison of SurePath liquid-based processing with cytospin processing. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:16-20.
15.
Nassar H, Ali-Fehmi R, Madan S: Use of ThinPrep monolayer technique and cytospin preparation in urine cytology: a comparative analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:115-118.
16.
Piaton E, Hutin K, Faynel J, Ranchin MC, Cottier M: Cost efficiency analysis of modern cytocentrifugation methods versus liquid based (Cytyc ThinPrep) processing of urinary samples. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:1208-1212.
17.
Busschots S, O'Toole S, O'Leary JJ, Stordal B: Non-invasive and non-destructive measurements of confluence in cultured adherent cell lines. MethodsX 2014;2:8-13.
18.
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.
19.
Renshaw AA: Quantitative assessment of spray vs immersion fixation for thyroid fine-needle aspiration specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:796-798.
20.
Agarwal SP: Manual for Cytology. Cancer Resource Manual 3. New Dehli, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare/Government of India, 2013, pp 20-23.
21.
Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B: Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:177-184.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.