Significance of atypical category in voided urine specimens prepared by liquid-based technology: Experience of a single institution

Samuel Barasch, Michael Choi, Jimmie Stewart, Kasturi Das

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction: The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of atypical cytology in voided urine samples. We also studied any differences in outcome that may exist between the patients being surveyed versus high risk for urothelial carcinoma (UC). Materials and methods: This was a retrospective study of all voided urine specimens with "atypical" cytology over a 10-year period. The patients were categorized into those with and without a prior diagnosis of UC as the "surveillance" and "de novo" (DG) groups. Follow-up was obtained. Clinical impact and outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. Results: In this study, 5.7% of voided urine specimens were atypical. Mean age of patients in years, male/female ratio, and time to diagnosis in days was 59 versus 71, 23:15 versus 22:1, and 95 versus 43 in the DG and surveillance group, respectively. Rate of progression to UC was similar in both groups. High-grade UC was significantly higher in the DG. Conclusions: Approximately 20% of patients in the DG were subsequently diagnosed with UC. The common causes for the atypical diagnosis that did not progress to UC were stones and benign prostatic hyperplasia. In the absence of an etiology for the atypia, further investigations are warranted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)118-125
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Volume3
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2014

Keywords

  • Atypical urothelial cells
  • Bladder cancer
  • Urinary bladder neoplasm
  • Urinary bladder pathology
  • Urine cytology
  • Urothelial carcinoma

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Significance of atypical category in voided urine specimens prepared by liquid-based technology: Experience of a single institution'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this