巴黎尿细胞学报告系统之前的尿细胞学检查实践模式。
Practice Patterns in Urinary Cytopathology Prior to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.
机构信息
From the Department of Pathology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois (Dr Barkan); the Department of Pathology, University of California in San Francisco, and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco (Dr Tabatabai); the Department of Pathology, University of Wisconsin, and the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison (Dr Kurtycz); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (Dr Padmanabhan); the Department of Biostatistics, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois (Ms Souers); the Department of Pathology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (Dr Nayar); and the Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Sturgis).
出版信息
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020 Feb;144(2):172-176. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0045-CP. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
CONTEXT.—: The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology has been disseminated since its inception in 2013; however, the daily practice patterns of urinary tract cytopathology are not well known.
OBJECTIVE.—: To assess urinary tract cytopathology practice patterns across a variety of pathology laboratories to aid in the implementation and future update of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.
DESIGN.—: A questionnaire was designed to gather information about urinary tract cytopathology practices and mailed in July 2014 to 2116 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program. The participating laboratories' answers were summarized.
RESULTS.—: Of the 879 of 2116 laboratories (41%) that participated, 745 (84.8%) reported processing urinary tract specimens in house. The laboratories reported processing various specimen types: voided urine, 735 of 738 (99.6%); bladder washing/barbotage, 639 of 738 (86.6%); and catheterized urine specimens, 653 of 738 (88.5%). Some laboratories used multiple preparation methods, but the most commonly used preparation techniques for urinary tract specimens were ThinPrep (57.4%) and Cytospin (45.5%). Eighty-eight of 197 laboratories (44.7%) reported preparing a cell block, but with a low frequency. Adequacy criteria were used by 295 of 707 laboratories (41.7%) for voided urine, and 244 of 707 (34.5%) assessed adequacy for bladder washing/barbotage. More than 95% of the laboratories reported the use of general categories: negative, atypical, suspicious, and positive. Polyomavirus was classified as negative in 408 of 642 laboratories (63.6%) and atypical in 189 of 642 (29.4%). One hundred twenty-eight of 708 laboratories (18.1%) performed ancillary testing, and of these, 102 of 122 (83.6%) reported performing UroVysion.
CONCLUSIONS.—: Most laboratories use the ThinPrep method followed by the Cytospin technique; therefore, the criteria published in , based mostly on ThinPrep and SurePath, should be validated for Cytospin, and relevant information should be included in the revised edition of .
背景
自 2013 年《巴黎泌尿系统细胞病理学报告系统》发布以来，该系统已得到广泛传播；然而，我们对日常的尿路上皮肿瘤细胞学实践模式知之甚少。
目的
评估各种病理实验室的尿路上皮肿瘤细胞学实践模式，以协助《巴黎泌尿系统细胞病理学报告系统》的实施和未来更新。
设计
设计了一份问卷，以收集尿路上皮肿瘤细胞学实践信息，并于 2014 年 7 月邮寄给参加美国病理学家学会（College of American Pathologists）实验室间比较项目的 2116 个实验室。总结了参与实验室的答案。
结果
在 2116 个实验室中有 879 个（41%）参与，其中 745 个（84.8%）报告在实验室内部处理尿路上皮肿瘤标本。这些实验室报告处理各种类型的标本：尿液，738 个中的 735 个（99.6%）；膀胱冲洗/抽吸，738 个中的 639 个（86.6%）；和导尿标本，738 个中的 653 个（88.5%）。一些实验室使用了多种制备方法，但最常用于尿路上皮肿瘤标本的制备技术是 ThinPrep（57.4%）和 Cytospin（45.5%）。197 个实验室中有 88 个（44.7%）报告制备细胞块，但频率较低。295 个实验室中的 707 个（41.7%）用于尿液，244 个实验室中的 707 个（34.5%）评估膀胱冲洗/抽吸的充足性。超过 95%的实验室报告使用一般类别：阴性、非典型、可疑和阳性。408 个实验室中的 642 个（63.6%）将多瘤病毒归类为阴性，189 个实验室中的 642 个（29.4%）归类为非典型。128 个实验室中的 708 个（18.1%）进行了辅助检测，其中 122 个实验室中的 102 个（83.6%）报告进行了 UroVysion 检测。
结论
大多数实验室使用 ThinPrep 方法，其次是 Cytospin 技术；因此，应根据大多数基于 ThinPrep 和 SurePath 的标准，对发表在中的标准进行验证，并在修订版中包含相关信息。
Zotero 插件