PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: An elevated nuclear-to-cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio of ≥0.5 is a required criterion for the diagnosis of atypical urothelial cells (AUC) in The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.
METHODS: To validate the N:C ratio cutoff value and its predictive power for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC), the authors retrospectively reviewed the urinary tract cytology specimens of 15 cases of AUC with HGUC on follow-up (AUC-HGUC) and 33 cases of AUC without HGUC on follow-up (AUC-N-HGUC). The number of atypical cells in each case was recorded, and each atypical cell was photographed and digitally examined to calculate the nuclear size and N:C ratio.
RESULTS: On average, the maximum N:C ratios of atypical cells were significantly different between the AUC-HGUC and AUC-N-HGUC cohorts (0.53 vs 0.43; P =.00009), whereas the maximum nuclear sizes of atypical cells (153.43 μM2 vs 201.47 μM2 ; P = .69) and the number of atypical cells per case (10.13 vs 7.88; P = .12) were not found to be significantly different. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the maximum N:C ratio alone had high discriminatory capacity (area under the curve, 79.19%; 95% confidence interval, 64.19%-94.19%). The optimal maximum N:C ratio threshold was 0.486, giving a sensitivity of 73.3% and a specificity of 84.8% for predicting HGUC on follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The identification of AUC with an N:C ratio >0.486 has a high predictive power for HGUC on follow-up in AUC specimens. This justifies using the N:C ratio as a required criterion for the AUC category. Individual laboratories using different cytopreparation methods may require independent validation of the N:C ratio cutoff value. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:710-6. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
METHODS: To validate the N:C ratio cutoff value and its predictive power for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC), the authors retrospectively reviewed the urinary tract cytology specimens of 15 cases of AUC with HGUC on follow-up (AUC-HGUC) and 33 cases of AUC without HGUC on follow-up (AUC-N-HGUC). The number of atypical cells in each case was recorded, and each atypical cell was photographed and digitally examined to calculate the nuclear size and N:C ratio.
RESULTS: On average, the maximum N:C ratios of atypical cells were significantly different between the AUC-HGUC and AUC-N-HGUC cohorts (0.53 vs 0.43; P =.00009), whereas the maximum nuclear sizes of atypical cells (153.43 μM2 vs 201.47 μM2 ; P = .69) and the number of atypical cells per case (10.13 vs 7.88; P = .12) were not found to be significantly different. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the maximum N:C ratio alone had high discriminatory capacity (area under the curve, 79.19%; 95% confidence interval, 64.19%-94.19%). The optimal maximum N:C ratio threshold was 0.486, giving a sensitivity of 73.3% and a specificity of 84.8% for predicting HGUC on follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The identification of AUC with an N:C ratio >0.486 has a high predictive power for HGUC on follow-up in AUC specimens. This justifies using the N:C ratio as a required criterion for the AUC category. Individual laboratories using different cytopreparation methods may require independent validation of the N:C ratio cutoff value. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:710-6. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
摘要：
暂无翻译
