Abstract
Urine cytology is used to screen for urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria or risk factors (e.g., smoking, industrial dye exposure) and is an essential clinical triage and longitudinal monitoring tool for patients with known bladder cancer. However, urine cytology is semi-subjective and thus susceptible to issues including specimen quality, inter-observer variability, and “hedging” towards equivocal (“atypical”) diagnoses. These factors limit the predictive value of urine cytology and increase reliance on invasive procedures (cystoscopy). The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology (TPS) was formulated to provide more quantitative/reproducible endpoints with well-defined criteria for urothelial atypia. TPS is often compared to other assessment techniques to justify its adoption. TPS results in decreased use of the atypical category and better reproducibility. Previous manuscripts comparing diagnoses pre- and post-TPS lacked a longitudinal component and thus failed to consider temporal differences between diagnoses made under prior systems and TPS. By aggregating across time, studies may underestimate the magnitude of differences between assessment methods. We conducted a large-scale longitudinal reassessment of urine cytology using TPS criteria from specimens collected from 2008 to 2018, prior to the mid-2018 adoption of TPS at an academic medical center. Findings indicate that differences in atypical assignment were largest at the start of the period and these differences progressively decreased towards insignificance just prior to TPS implementation. This finding suggests that cytopathologists had begun to utilize the quantitative TPS criteria prior to official adoption, which may more broadly inform adoption strategies, communication, and understanding for evolving classification systems in cytology.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
JL is funded in part under NIH subaward of grant number P20GM104416.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Human Research Protection Program (IRB) of Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because of participant privacy concerns. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to joshua.j.levy{at}dartmouth.edu.