Urine cytology in the evaluation of urological malignancy revisited: is it still necessary?

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/206261
Title:
Urine cytology in the evaluation of urological malignancy revisited: is it still necessary?
Authors:
Falebita, Opeyemi Adegboyega; Lee, Garry; Sweeney, Paul
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Glenville Place, Cork, Ireland., opefaleb@yahoo.com
Citation:
Urol Int. 2010;84(1):45-9. Epub 2010 Feb 17.
Journal:
Urologia internationalis
Issue Date:
31-Jan-2012
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/206261
DOI:
10.1159/000273465
PubMed ID:
20173368
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine if urine cytology was still necessary as a routine part of the evaluation for the presence of urological malignancy and to evaluate its cost effectiveness. METHODS: Urine cytology reports over a 6-year period (2000-2005) were retrieved from our institution's pathology department database. Patients with urine cytology positive for malignant cells were identified. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of these patients for age, sex, flexible cystoscopy and radiological imaging results. The cost of urine cytology was retrieved from the pathology department. RESULTS: There were a total of 2,568 urine cytological examinations. Of these, 25 were positive for malignant cells. There were 19 male (76%) and 6 female (24%) patients with a mean age of 72 years (range: 49-97). In 21 patients with positive cytology, a bladder tumor was identified at flexible cystoscopy and/or imaging studies. For a positive cytology yield of 1%, EUR 210,000 was spent. CONCLUSIONS: Routine urine cytology was not cost effective and did not add to the diagnostic yield beyond cystoscopy and diagnostic imaging. It may be omitted in the initial evaluation of urological malignancy.
Language:
eng
MeSH:
Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/pathology; Cystoscopy/methods; False Positive Reactions; Female; Hematuria/pathology; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Sensitivity and Specificity; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/*pathology/urine; Urology/*methods
ISSN:
1423-0399 (Electronic); 0042-1138 (Linking)

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorFalebita, Opeyemi Adegboyegaen_GB
dc.contributor.authorLee, Garryen_GB
dc.contributor.authorSweeney, Paulen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2012-01-31T16:38:51Z-
dc.date.available2012-01-31T16:38:51Z-
dc.date.issued2012-01-31T16:38:51Z-
dc.identifier.citationUrol Int. 2010;84(1):45-9. Epub 2010 Feb 17.en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1423-0399 (Electronic)en_GB
dc.identifier.issn0042-1138 (Linking)en_GB
dc.identifier.pmid20173368en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000273465en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/206261-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: We aim to determine if urine cytology was still necessary as a routine part of the evaluation for the presence of urological malignancy and to evaluate its cost effectiveness. METHODS: Urine cytology reports over a 6-year period (2000-2005) were retrieved from our institution's pathology department database. Patients with urine cytology positive for malignant cells were identified. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of these patients for age, sex, flexible cystoscopy and radiological imaging results. The cost of urine cytology was retrieved from the pathology department. RESULTS: There were a total of 2,568 urine cytological examinations. Of these, 25 were positive for malignant cells. There were 19 male (76%) and 6 female (24%) patients with a mean age of 72 years (range: 49-97). In 21 patients with positive cytology, a bladder tumor was identified at flexible cystoscopy and/or imaging studies. For a positive cytology yield of 1%, EUR 210,000 was spent. CONCLUSIONS: Routine urine cytology was not cost effective and did not add to the diagnostic yield beyond cystoscopy and diagnostic imaging. It may be omitted in the initial evaluation of urological malignancy.en_GB
dc.language.isoengen_GB
dc.subject.meshAgeden_GB
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 and overen_GB
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Transitional Cell/pathologyen_GB
dc.subject.meshCystoscopy/methodsen_GB
dc.subject.meshFalse Positive Reactionsen_GB
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_GB
dc.subject.meshHematuria/pathologyen_GB
dc.subject.meshHumansen_GB
dc.subject.meshMaleen_GB
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_GB
dc.subject.meshSensitivity and Specificityen_GB
dc.subject.meshUrinary Bladder Neoplasms/*pathology/urineen_GB
dc.subject.meshUrology/*methodsen_GB
dc.titleUrine cytology in the evaluation of urological malignancy revisited: is it still necessary?en_GB
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Glenville Place, Cork, Ireland., opefaleb@yahoo.comen_GB
dc.identifier.journalUrologia internationalisen_GB
dc.description.provinceMunster-
All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.