4.4 Article

Digital image analysis supports a nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio cutoff value below 0.7 for positive for high-grade urothelial carcinoma and suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology specimens

期刊

CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 127, 期 2, 页码 120-124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22061

关键词

digital image analysis; high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC); nuclear-to-cytoplasm (N:C) ratio; suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC); The Paris System; urine cytology

资金

  1. Translation Research Program at Weill Cornell Medicine, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Urinary cytology is sensitive and specific for diagnosing and screening high-grade urothelial carcinomas (HGUC). The Paris System (TPS) for urinary cytology was introduced in 2016 to standardize reporting. According to TPS diagnostic categories of HGUC and suspicious for HGUC (SHGUC), the average nuclear-to-cytoplasm (N:C) ratio of atypical cells should be >= 0.7. The objective of the current study was to measure the N:C ratio of urine cytology specimens with HGUC and SHGUC diagnoses and biopsy-proven HGUC follow-up. Methods A cohort of 64 cases (HGUC, 49 cases; SHGUC, 15 cases) from 57 patients was constructed. Urine cytology slides were scanned into whole-slide digital images. The nuclear and cytoplasmic areas were enumerated by digital image analysis (DIA), and the N:C ratios were measured. Results In total, 640 cells were analyzed by DIA (HGUC, 490 cells; SHGUC, 150 cells). For HGUC and SHGUC, the average N:C ratios were 0.57 and 0.53, respectively. The maximum average N:C ratio was 0.73 for HGUC and 0.68 for SHGUC. HGUC had higher average N:C ratio (P < .001), higher average nuclear area (P < .001), higher average maximum N:C ratio (P = .005), and higher average maximum nuclear area (P = .006) compared with SHGUC. Conclusions The N:C ratios for the HGUC (0.57) and SHGUC (0.53) categories are lower than those previously suggested in TPS. The authors advocate reducing the N:C ratio below the current threshold of 0.7.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据