Home | About CytoJournalEditorial Board | Archived articles | Search CytoJ Articles | Subscribe | Peer review policies | CytoJournal Quiz Cases
  Reviewer corner | Author corner | OA Steward’s corner | CF member’s corner | Join as CF member | Manuscript submission | Open Access (OA) Advocacy
CytoJournal All 'FULL TEXT' in HTML are FREE under "open access" charter of CytoJournal.
To login for downloading any PDF OR to request TOC (Table of Content) by e-mail, please click here
Home Email this page Print this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Cytopathology Foundation
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded5    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


CytoJournal 2019,  16:21

Impact of the Paris system for reporting urine cytopathology on predictive values of the equivocal diagnostic categories and interobserver agreement

1 Department of Pathology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
2 Department of Pathology Biostatistics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Correspondence Address:
Rania Bakkar
Department of Pathology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_30_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: The Paris System (TPS) acknowledges the need for more standardized terminology for reporting urine cytopathology results and minimizing the use of equivocal terms. We apply TPS diagnostic terminologies to assess interobserver agreement, compare TPS with the traditional method (TM) of reporting urine cytopathology, and evaluate the rate and positive predictive value (PPV) of each TPS diagnostic category. A survey is conducted at the end of the study. Materials and Methods: One hundred urine samples were reviewed independently by six cytopathologists. The diagnosis was rendered according to TPS categories: negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (NHGUC), atypical urothelial cells (AUC), low-grade urothelial neoplasm (LGUN), suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (SHGUC), and high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). The agreement was assessed using kappa. Disagreements were classified as high and low impacts. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: Perfect consensus agreement was 31%, with an overall kappa of 0.362. Kappa by diagnostic category was 0.483, 0.178, 0.258, and 0.520 for NHGUC, AUC, SHGUC, and HGUC, respectively. Both TM and TPS showed 100% specificity and PPV. TPS showed 43% sensitivity (38% by TM) and 70% accuracy (66% by TM). Disagreements with high clinical impact were 27%. Of the 100 cases, 52 were concurrent biopsy-proven HGUC. The detection rate of biopsy-proven HGUC was 43% by TPS (57% by TM). The rate of NHGUC was 54% by TPS versus 26% by TM. AUC rate was 23% by TPS (44% by TM). The PPV of the AUC category by TPS was 61% versus 43% by TM. The survey showed 33% overall satisfaction. Conclusions: TPS shows adequate precision for NHGUC and HGUC, with low interobserver agreement for other categories. TPS significantly increased the clinical significance of AUC category. Refinement and widespread application of TPS diagnostic criteria may further improve interobserver agreement and the detection rate of HGUC.


Print this article     Email this article

  Site Map | Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2007 - CytoJournal | A journal by Cytopathology Foundation Inc with Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
New version online since 1st July '08
Open Access