Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2020 Nov;48(11):979-985.
doi: 10.1002/dc.24476. Epub 2020 Jun 16.

Interobserver reproducibility of The Paris System of Reporting Urine Cytology on cytocentrifuged samples

Rishabh Sahai  1 , Bindu Rajkumar  1 , Prashant Joshi  1 , Ashok Singh  1 , Arvind Kumar  1 , Prashant Durgapal  1 , Arvind Gupta  1 , Sanjeev Kishore  1 , Nilotpal Chowdhury  1
Affiliations
Observational Study

Interobserver reproducibility of The Paris System of Reporting Urine Cytology on cytocentrifuged samples

Rishabh Sahai et al. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020 Nov.

Abstract

Background: The Paris System of Reporting Urine Cytology aims to screen samples for HGUC and to provide a universally acceptable reporting format for urine cytology specimens. However, studies detailing the reproducibility of this system, especially on cyto-centrifuge preparations, are lacking.

Methods: 149 voided urine samples received in Department of Pathology were reviewed independently by five cytopathologists. To estimate the overall agreement, Gwet's AC and AC1statistics between each pair of raters were used. To measure the random error component, polychoric correlations were used. To assess the systematic error, Friedman test was used.

Results: There was moderately good inter-rater agreement between the raters. Gwets AC2 ranged between 0.67 and 0.89 for the classification of the cases once the sample was found adequate for assessment, while the Gwet's AC1 ranged between 0.61 and 0.94 in assessing for adequacy. There were significant systematic differences between raters in their thresholds for the different categories as well as in differentiating between an adequate and inadequate sample (P value by Friedman test <.001). The association between pathologists was moderately high (polychoric correlations ranging from 0.67 to 0.93). In the majority (108 of 149, 72.5%) of the cases, the range of differences between raters were of one category or less, suggesting satisfactory agreement, but having large disagreements in minority.

Conclusion: The interobserver reproducibility for the Paris System is moderately good, and is suitable for adoption. It is limited by the lack of agreement as to what constitutes an adequate specimen and differing threshold for categorizing the lesions in differing groups.

Keywords: The Paris System of Reporting Urine Cytology; high grade urothelial carcinoma; interobserver reproducibility; urine cytology.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Cumberbatch MGK, Jubber I, Black PC, et al. Epidemiology of bladder cancer: a systematic review and contemporary update of risk factors in 2018. Eur Urol. 2018;74(6):784-795.
    1. Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Nayar R, et al. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. Adv Anat Pathol. 2016;23(4):193-201.
    1. Long T, Layfield LJ, Esebua M, Frazier SR, Giorgadze DT, Schmidt RL. Interobserver reproducibility of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cytojournal. 2017;14:17.
    1. Bakkar R, Mirocha J, Fan X, et al. Impact of the Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytopathology on predictive values of the equivocal diagnostic categories and interobserver agreement. Cytojournal. 2019;16:21.
    1. Kurtycz DFI, Barkan GA, Pavelec DM, et al. Paris interobserver reproducibility study (PIRST). J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018;7(4):174-184.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources