Uropathology
Azadeh Rakhshan; Esmat Arvin; Sam Alahyari; Behrang Kazeminezhad; Tahmineh Mollasharifi; Alireza Bagheri; Fereshte Aliakbari; Seyed Jalil Hosseini; Mohammad Soleimani; Mahsa Ahadi; Elena Jamali; Afshin Moradi; Zahra Sadeghzadeh; Saleh Ghiasi; Malihe Nasiri; Farzad Allameh
Abstract
Background & Objective: The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS) is a new method for evaluating urinary cytology designed to reduce unreproducible reports. The aim of this study was to reclassify and compare urinary cytology reports with TPS criteria to determine the frequency of unreproducible ...
Read More
Background & Objective: The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS) is a new method for evaluating urinary cytology designed to reduce unreproducible reports. The aim of this study was to reclassify and compare urinary cytology reports with TPS criteria to determine the frequency of unreproducible reports compared to the previous system.Methods: In this study, the laboratory electronic registration system analyzed patients' urine samples taken by voided or washing and brushing methods. The cytological evaluation was performed considering the previous system and TPS by a pathologist. The results of the two systems were compared, and the sensitivity and specificity of TPS were calculated.Results: Urine samples were taken from 876 patients. The mean age of patients was 63.36 ± 12.62. Comparing the routine classification system and TPS, it was observed that the number of atypical reports in the TPS system decreased by 12%, and all of these cases were downgraded to the negative group in the new classification. The sensitivity and specificity of TPS were 29.4% and 95.1%, respectively, if suspected malignancy and positive reports for malignancy were considered. Finally, if positive reports for malignancy were selected, sensitivity and specificity changed to 11.8% and 100%, respectively.Conclusion: Although the TPS system has low sensitivity for the diagnosis of urothelial malignancies, due to its high specificity, it is possible to consider and use this classification for screening patients.
Uropathology
Mahsa Ahadi; Afshin Moradi; Banafshe Bayat; Hanieh Zham; Seyed Jalil Hosseini; Sara Zahedifar; Afsoon Taghavi
Abstract
Background & Objective: Urothelial carcinoma is the seventh most common cancer in the world. The histological classification of papillary carcinoma is one of the most important determinants for its prognosis. Sometimes there is an overlap in the extent of the tumor, and the accurate microscopic diagnosis ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Urothelial carcinoma is the seventh most common cancer in the world. The histological classification of papillary carcinoma is one of the most important determinants for its prognosis. Sometimes there is an overlap in the extent of the tumor, and the accurate microscopic diagnosis of the tumor is not always easy. The aim of this study was to evaluate P53 and CK20 immunohistochemical markers in comparison with morphologic findings in low- and high-grade urothelial carcinomas.Methods: For this descriptive study, urinary bladder samples were collected from 50 cancer patients who had undergone biopsy and surgery in Shohaday-e Tajrish Hospital of Tehran, Iran, during the years 2015-2016. P53 and CK20 were studied, and the demographic and histopathological characteristics of the tumor were also analysed.Results: The mean age of patients enrolled in this study (48 males and 2 females) was 65.8±11.9. Twenty-five cases presented with low-grade and 25 cases presented with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinomas. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for P53 were 48%, 80%, 70.5%, and 60.6%, respectively, while the same values for CK20 were 44%, 92%, 84.6%, and 62.2%, respectively. Immunohistochemical results were also positively correlated with the extent of the tumor. Conclusion: Based on the results, P53 and CK20 may serve as specific markers for diagnosis of low- and high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma but not sensitive. P53 and ck20 staining have also a high specificity as 80% and 92% and low sensitivity compared to the low and high morphology of papillary carcinoma, thus their positive and their staining intensity are valuable for diagnosis, but their negative results are not determinant.