A comparison between conventional and the Paris systems of reporting urinary cytopathology with a literature update

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionOwing to certain inherent limitations of earlier reporting systems, “The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS)” was implemented in 2015 to standardize reporting urine cytology with more stringent cytomorphologic criteria. We share our post‐TPS experience, comparing it with the conventional system (CS).AimTo assess and compare the cyto‐histopathologic/cystoscopic agreement between the conventional and the Paris systems (CS and TPS) for reporting urine cytology.Materials and MethodsIt is a cross‐sectional study involving urine samples from 170 patients divided into two groups (CS and TPS). Of the 170 cases, 85 were reported according to the CS, and 85 were reported according to TPS with all the relevant clinical, radiologic, and cystoscopic findings. Using the kappa statistics, both groups were statistically analyzed for sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and agreement.ResultsThe sensitivity and specificity for high‐grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) as per TPS were 83.33% and 94.59%, respectively, while they were 73.47% and 80.56% for the conventional system. The agreement for HGUC with TPS was 87.06% with a kappa value of 0.7416, while it was 76.5% with a kappa value of 0.53 for the CS. Implementing the TPS minimized usage of the atypical urothelial cells (AUC) category, increasing the clarity in detecting HGUC.ConclusionTPS provides better agreement with histopathology than the CS for diagnosing HGUC, which is attributable to stringent TPS criteria that prompt cytopathologists to look more diligently for morphologic and numeric criteria.