Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC)

The goal for the atypical urothelial cells (AUC) category is to capture those cases worrisome for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) but that fall short of the suspicious for HGUC (SHGUC) category. Known causes of atypia, such as polyomavirus change, treatment effect, calculi, etc., should be classified as negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (NHGUC). We have set forth criteria for AUCs using the cytomorphologic features: increased nuclear to cytoplasmic (N/C) ratio secondary to nuclear enlargement, abnormal nuclear chromasia and chromatin pattern, and irregularity of the chromatinic rim (nuclear membrane). We recommend restraint using the “AUC” category.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

eBook EUR 50.28 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 63.29 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC)

Chapter © 2016

Suspicious for High-Grade Urothelial Carcinoma (Suspicious)

Chapter © 2016

Negative for High-Grade Urothelial Carcinoma (Negative)

Chapter © 2016

References

  1. Gopalakrishna A, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of urine-based tests for bladder cancer varies greatly by patient. BMC Urol. 2016;16:30. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolenz C, West AM, Ortiz N, Kabbani W, Lotan Y. Urinary cytology for the detection of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder—a flawed adjunct to cystoscopy? Urologic Oncol Seminars Orig Investigations. 2013;31:366–71. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkan GA, et al. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2016;5:177–88. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz D. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22864-8.pdf.
  5. Anbardar MH, Monjazeb R. Reclassification of urinary cytology regarding The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology with cytohistological correlation demonstrates high sensitivity for high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48:446–52. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Stanzione N, et al. The continual impact of the Paris System on urine cytology, a 3-year experience. Cytopathology. 2020;31:35–40. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Vosoughi A, et al. The Paris System “atypical urothelial cells” category: can the current criteria be improved? J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;10:3–8. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Compton ML, Weiss VL, Barkan GA, Ely KA. Targeted education as a method for reinforcing Paris System criteria and reducing urine cytology atypia rates. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;10(1):9–13. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Granados R, Duarte JA, Corrales T, Camarmo E, Bajo P. Applying the Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology increases the rate of atypical urothelial cells in benign cases: a need for patient management recommendations. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:71–6. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brimo F, Auger M. The atypical urothelial cell category in the Paris System: strengthening the Achilles’ heel. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:305–6. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Glass RE, et al. Two-tiered subdivision of atypia on urine cytology can improve patient follow-up and optimize the utility of UroVysion. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:188–95. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hassan M, et al. Impact of implementing the Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology in the performance of urine cytology: a correlative study of 124 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146:384–90. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Joudi AM, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. The positive predictive value of “suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma” in urinary tract cytology specimens: a single-institution study of 665 cases. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:811–9. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Miki Y, Neat M, Chandra A. Application of The Paris System to atypical urine cytology samples: correlation with histology and UroVysion((R)) FISH. Cytopathology. 2017;28:88–95. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang Y, Auger M, Kanber Y, Caglar D, Brimo F. Implementing The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology results in a decrease in the rate of the “atypical” category and an increase in its prediction of subsequent high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:207–14. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Zheng X, et al. The Paris System for urine cytology in upper tract urothelial specimens: a comparative analysis with biopsy and surgical resection. Cytopathology. 2018;29:184–8. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Suh J, et al. Modification of The Paris System for urinary tract washing specimens using diagnostic cytological features. Cytopathology. 2017;28:516–23. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Malviya K, Fernandes G, Naik L, Kothari K, Agnihotri M. Utility of the Paris System in Reporting Urine Cytology. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:145–52. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rezaee N, Tabatabai ZL, Olson MT. Adequacy of voided urine specimens prepared by ThinPrep and evaluated using The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017;6:155–61. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Torous VF, Brancely D, VanderLaan PA. Implementation of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology results in lower atypical diagnostic rates. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017;6:205–10. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mikou P, et al. Evaluation of the Paris System in atypical urinary cytology. Cytopathology. 2018;29:545–9. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rohilla M, et al. Cytohistological correlation of urine cytology in a tertiary centre with application of the Paris system. Cytopathology. 2018;29:436–43. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zare S, et al. A single institutional experience with the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: correlation of cytology and histology in 194 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2018;150:162–7. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. VandenBussche CJ, Allison DB, Gupta M, Ali SZ, Rosenthal DL. A 20-year and 46,000-specimen journey to Paris reveals the influence of reporting systems and passive peer feedback on pathologist practice patterns. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:381–9. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Meilleroux J, et al. One year of experience using the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:430–6. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Bertsch EC, Siddiqui MT, Ellis CL. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology improves correlation with surgical pathology biopsy diagnoses of the lower urinary tract. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46:221–7. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Xing J, Monaco SE, Pantanowitz L. Utility of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology in upper urinary tract specimens. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7:311–7. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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;7:185–94. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurtycz DFI, et al. Paris Interobserver Reproducibility Study (PIRST). J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7:174–84. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson CJ, Pambuccian SE, Barkan GA. Split-sample comparison of urothelial cells in ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in urinary cytology: do we need to adjust The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology criteria? Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;128:119–25. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bakkar R, et al. Impact of the Paris system for reporting urine cytopathology on predictive values of the equivocal diagnostic categories and interobserver agreement. Cytojournal. 2019;16:21. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Vlajnic T, Gut A, Savic S, Bubendorf L. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology in daily practice with emphasis on ancillary testing by multiprobe FISH. J Clin Pathol. 2020;73:90–5. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Barkan GA, et al. Practice patterns in urinary cytopathology prior to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;144:172–6. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McIntire PJ, et al. Negative predictive value and sensitivity of urine cytology prior to implementation of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127:125–31. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Abro S, et al. Outcome analysis and negative predictive value of the “unsatisfactory/nondiagnostic” category of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:64–70. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McIntire PJ, Kilic I, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology reduces atypia rates and does not alter the negative predictive value of urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:14–9. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Danakas A, Sweeney M, Cheris S, Agrawal T. Urinary tract cytology: a cytologic-histopathologic correlation with The Paris System, an institutional study. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:56–63. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Myles N, et al. Evidence-based diagnostic accuracy measurement in urine cytology using likelihood ratios. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:71–8. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sahai R, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of The Paris System of Reporting Urine Cytology on cytocentrifuged samples. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48(11):979–85; https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24476.
  40. Pastorello RG, Barkan GA, Saieg M. Experience on the use of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytopathology: review of the published literature. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:79–87. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Galen RS, Gambino RS. Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. Wiley; 1975. Google Scholar
  42. Pambuccian SE. What is atypia? Use, misuse and overuse of the term atypia in diagnostic cytopathology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. n.d.;4:44–52. Google Scholar
  43. Melamed MR, Wolinska WH. On the significance of intracytoplasmic inclusions in the urinary sediment. Am J Pathol. 1961;38:711–9. CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Frost JK. The cell in health and disease. An evaluation of cellular morphologic expression of biologic behavior. 2nd, revised edition. Monogr Clin Cytol. 1986;2:1–304. CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Raistrick J, Shambayati B, Dunsmuir W. Collection fluid helps preservation in voided urine cytology. Cytopathology. 2008;19:111–7. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ahmed HG, Tom MA. The consequence of delayed fixation on subsequent preservation of urine cells. Oman Med J. 2011;26:14–8. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang ML, Guo AX, VandenBussche CJ. Morphologists overestimate the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:669–77. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Vaickus LJ, Tambouret RH. Young investigator challenge: the accuracy of the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio estimation among trained morphologists. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:524–30. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hang JF, Charu V, Zhang ML, VandenBussche CJ. Digital image analysis supports a nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio cutoff value of 0.5 for atypical urothelial cells. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125:710–6. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Long T, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cytojournal. 2017;14:17. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. McIntire PJ, et al. Digital image analysis supports a nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio cutoff value below 0.7 for positive for high-grade urothelial carcinoma and suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127:120–4. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Barkan GA, Wojcik EM. Genitourinary cytopathology (kidney and urinary tract). Canc Treat. 2014;160:149–83. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. McIntire PJ, Elsoukkary SS, Robinson BD, Siddiqui MT. High-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology: different spaces – different faces, highlighting morphologic variance. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:36–40. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang ML, et al. A review of urinary cytology in the setting of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;10:29–35. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kurtycz D, et al. Perceptions of Paris: an international survey in preparation for The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology 2.0 (TPS 2.0). J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10(5):S4. Google Scholar
  56. 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;4:183–9. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. High-grade urothelial carcinoma with hypochromatic chromatin in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021;10:25–8. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Pierconti F, et al. Hypochromatic large urothelial cells in urine cytology are indicative of high grade urothelial carcinoma. APMIS. 2018;126:705–9. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Pambuccian SE. A tale of atypia: what can we learn from this? Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:376–80. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Rai S, et al. A quest for accuracy: evaluation of The Paris System in diagnosis of urothelial carcinomas. J Cytol. 2019;36:169–73. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Vaheda Begam K, Vallamreddy SKR, Pratima J. Implementation of the Paris system versus institutional diagnosis in the performance of urinary cytology: a 5 years correlative study of 74 cases. IP Arch Cytol Histopathol Res. 2019;4:193–8. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Roy M, et al. An institutional experience with The Paris System: a paradigm shift from ambiguous terminology to more objective criteria for reporting urine cytology. Cytopathol Off J Br Soc Clin Cytol. 2017;28:509–15. ArticleCASGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Loyola University Healthcare System, Maywood, IL, USA Güliz A. Barkan
  2. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA Margaret L. Compton
  3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA Margaret L. Compton
  4. Cleveland Clinic Laboratories, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA Tarik M. Elsheikh
  5. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA Kim A. Ely
  6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Madison, WI, USA Daniel F. I. Kurtycz
  7. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA Merce Jorda
  8. Department of Pathology/Cytopathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA Zahra Maleki
  9. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan Sachiko Minamiguchi
  10. Department of Pathology, Hakujyuji Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan Hiroshi Ohtani
  11. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon, Hôpital Femme-Mère-Enfant, Bron, France Eric Piaton
  12. Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China Bo Ping
  13. Institute of Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland Spasenija Savic Prince
  14. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA Z. Laura Tabatabai
  15. Department of Pathology/Cytopathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Christopher J. VandenBussche
  1. Güliz A. Barkan