Large-scale longitudinal comparison of urine cytological classification systems reveals potential early adoption of The Paris System criteria

Urine cytology is used to screen for urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria or risk factors (eg, smoking, industrial dye exposure) and is an essential clinical triage and longitudinal monitoring tool for patients with known bladder cancer. However, urine cytology is semisubjective and thus susceptible to issues including specimen quality, interobserver variability, and “hedging” towards equivocal (“atypical”) diagnoses. These factors limit the predictive value of urine cytology and increase reliance on invasive procedures (cystoscopy). The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology (TPS) was formulated to provide more quantitative/reproducible endpoints with well-defined criteria for urothelial atypia. TPS is often compared to other assessment techniques to justify its adoption. TPS results in decreased use of the atypical category and better reproducibility. Previous reports comparing diagnoses pre- and post-TPS have not considered temporal differences between diagnoses made under prior systems and TPS. By aggregating across time, studies may underestimate the magnitude of differences between assessment methods. We conducted a large-scale longitudinal reassessment of urine cytology using TPS criteria from specimens collected from 2008 to 2018, prior to the mid-2018 adoption of TPS at an academic medical center. Findings indicate that differences in atypical assignment were largest at the start of the period and these differences progressively decreased towards insignificance just prior to TPS implementation. This finding suggests that cytopathologists had begun to utilize the quantitative TPS criteria prior to official adoption, which may more broadly inform adoption strategies, communication, and understanding for evolving classification systems in cytology. •The Paris System (TPS) refined quantitative assessment criteria for urine cytology.•We performed a longitudinal reexamination comparing TPS and previous criteria.•Diagnostic differences disappeared prior to the official TPS implementation.•Findings suggest early adoption of TPS criteria.•Dissemination of evolving cytopathology guidelines can inform adoption practices.