Introduction: Urine cytology plays an important role in diagnosing urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, urine cytology interpretation is subjective and difficult. Morphogo (ALAB, Boston, MA, USA), equipped with automatic acquisition and scanning, optical focusing, and automatic classification with convolutional neural network has been developed for bone marrow aspirate smear analysis of hematopoietic diseases. The goal of this preliminary study was to determine the feasibility of developing a machine learning algorithm on Morphogo for identifying abnormal urothelial cells in urine cytology slides. Methods: Thirty-seven achieved abnormal urine cytology slides from cases with the diagnosis of atypical urothelial cells and above (suspicions or positive for UC) were obtained from 1 hospital. A pathologist (J.R.) reviewed the slides and manually selected and annotated representative cells to feed into Morphogo with following categories: benign (urothelial cells, squamous cells, degenerated cells, and inflammatory cells), atypical cells, and suspicious cells. Initial validation of the algorithm was performed on a subset of the original 37 cases. Urine samples from additional 12 unknown cases with various histological diagnoses (6 cases of high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC), 1 case of low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC), 1 case of prostate adenocarcinoma, 1 case of renal cell carcinoma, and 4 cases of non-neoplastic conditions) were collected from another hospital for initial blind testing. Results: A total of 1,910 benign and 1,978 abnormal (atypical and suspicious) cells from 37 slides were annotated for developing and training of the algorithm. This algorithm was validated on 27 slides that resulted in identification of at least 1 abnormal cell per slide, with a total of 200 abnormal cells, and an average of 7.4 cells per slide. Of the 12 unknown cases tested, the original cytology was positive for tumor cells in 2 HGUC samples. Morphogo was abnormal (atypical or suspicious) for 6 samples from patients with UC, including one with LGUC and one with prostate adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: Morphogo machine learning algorithm is capable of identifying abnormal urothelial cells. Further validation studies with a larger number of urine samples will be needed to determine if it can be used to assist the cytological diagnosis of UC.

1.
Bray
F
,
Ferlay
J
,
Soerjomataram
I
,
Siegel
RL
,
Torre
LA
,
Jemal
A
,
Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries
.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
2018
;
68
(
6
):
394
424
.
2.
China NHCotPsRo
.
Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for bladder cancer
. 2018 ed.
National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China: Office of the National Health Committee
;
2018
.
3.
Saginala
K
,
Barsouk
A
,
Aluru
JS
,
Rawla
P
,
Padala
SA
,
Barsouk
A
,
Epidemiology of bladder cancer
.
Medical Sciences
.
2020
;
8
(
1
):
15
.
4.
Manna
AK
,
Sarkar
M
,
Bandyopadhyay
U
,
Chakrabarti
S
,
Pathak
S
,
Sarkar
DK
,
Cytological and morphometric study of urinary epithelial cells with histopathological correlation
.
Indian J Surg
.
2014 Feb
;
76
(
1
):
26
30
.
5.
Mushtaq
J
,
Thurairaja
R
,
Nair
R
.
Bladder cancer
.
Surgery
.
2019
;
37
(
9
):
529
37
.
6.
Bhat
A
,
Ritch
C
.
Urinary biomarkers in bladder cancer: where do we stand?
Current Opinion in Urology
.
2019 Mar 01
;
29
:
1
.
7.
Rosenthal
DL
,
Wojcik
EM
,
Kurtycz
DFI
.
The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology
.
Springer
;
2015
.
8.
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
.
2016 Mar
;
124
(
3
):
174
80
.
9.
Lu
J
,
Rao
A
.
Morphogo system a tool for computational cytology
.
Acta Cytologica
.
2020
.
10.
Murphy
WM
.
Current status of urinary cytology in the evaluation of bladder neoplasms
.
Hum Pathol
.
1990 Sep
;
21
(
9
):
886
96
.
11.
Tone
K
,
Kojima
K
,
Hoshiai
K
,
Kumagai
N
,
Kijima
H
,
Kurose
A
,
An ancillary method in urine cytology: nucleolar/nuclear volume ratio for discrimination between benign and malignant urothelial cells
.
Diagn Cytopathol
.
2016 Jun
;
44
(
6
):
483
91
.
12.
McCroskey
Z
,
Pambuccian
SE
,
Kleitherms
S
,
Antic
T
,
Cohen
MB
,
Barkan
GA
,
Accuracy and interobserver variability of the cytologic diagnosis of low-grade urothelial carcinoma in instrumented urinary tract cytology specimens
.
Am J Clin Pathol
.
2015 Dec
;
144
(
6
):
902
8
.
13.
Nasuti
JF
,
Tam
D
,
Gupta
PK
.
Diagnostic value of liquid-based (Thinprep) preparations in nongynecologic cases
.
Diagn Cytopathol
.
2001 Feb
;
24
(
2
):
137
41
.
14.
Son
SM
,
Koo
JH
,
Choi
SY
,
Lee
HC
,
Lee
YM
,
Song
HG
,
Evaluation of urine cytology in urothelial carcinoma patients: a comparison of CellprepPlus® liquid-based cytology and conventional smear
.
Korean J Pathol
.
2012 Feb
;
46
(
1
):
68
74
.
15.
Kapoor
K
,
Datta
C
,
Pal
DK
.
Is liquid-based cytology an alternative to conventional cytology for detection of malignant cells in urine of bladder cancer? Eastern Indian prospective observational study
.
Turk J Urol
.
2019 Sep
;
45
(
5
):
351
6
.
16.
Zhang
JS
,
Yuan
Q
,
Hong-Lei
AN
.
Application of thin-prep cytology test in the diagnosis of postoperative recurrence of carcinoma of urinary bladder
.
Beijing Med J
.
2011
.
17.
Yamashiro
K
,
Taira
K
,
Nakajima
M
,
Azuma
M
,
Koseki
M
,
Abe
T
,
Voided urine cytology and low-grade urothelial neoplasia of the bladder: factors that influence the sensitivity
.
J Am Soc Cytopathol
.
2016 Jul 01
;
5
(
4
):
227
34
.
18.
Luo
Y
,
She
DL
,
Xiong
H
,
Yang
L
,
Fu
SJ
.
Diagnostic value of liquid-based cytology in urothelial carcinoma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
PLoS One
.
2015
;
10
(
8
):
e0134940
.
19.
Cowan
ML
,
VandenBussche
CJ
.
The paris system for reporting urinary cytology: early review of the literature reveals successes and rare shortcomings
.
J Am Soc Cytopathol
.
2018 Jul 01
;
7
(
4
):
185
94
.
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.