Introduction and Objectives: Factors like cold, flushing solutions, ischemia and reperfusion may alter the microscopic appearance of transitional cells leading to falsely positive results of urinary cytology in patients after kidney transplantation. After seeing 1 patient presenting with two consecutive highly suspicious cytology specimens 3 days after transplantation and no sign of urothelial tumor at retrograde urography, we analyzed the cytological picture of transitional cells in post-transplant patients. Material and Methods: We investigated 31 urine specimens of 11 patients undergoing kidney transplantation preoperatively (if possible) and on days 1, 3 and 9 postoperatively. Microscopic cytology was performed by using Papanicolaou’s criteria: 0 – no cytology possible (no cells), I+II – negative cytology, III – doubtful, IV – suspicious for tumor, V – tumor cells. All microscopic examinations were performed by one experienced senior pathologist. Results: Mean patient age was 55.8 (± 17.5) years, mean residual diuresis 856 (± 636) ml, mean cold ischemia time 13.6 (± 6.4) h, mean creatinine level on day 1: 582 µmol/l, day 3: 533 µmol/l and day 9: 259 µmol/l. None of the urinary cytology results were suspicious for malignant transformation (Papanicolaou I+II). No patient presented signs of urothelial malignancy after a mean follow-up of 3 months. Conclusion: Although microscopic urinary cytology may be falsely positive in 1–12% of non-transplanted patients due to urothelia atypia, inflammation or radiation/chemotherapy, the present study suggests that conventional microscopic cytology examinations in post-transplant patients are not heavily altered and do not lead to an increased false-positive rate.

Keywords:
Cytology, Renal transplantation, Bladder cancer
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
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.