ČESKÁ UROLOGIE / CZECH UROLOGY – 4 / 2018

249 Ces Urol 2018; 22(4): 242–250 PŘEHLEDOVÝ ČLÁNEK interobservační variabilitu (nikoliv však zcela elimi‑ nuje) a patrně povede k poklesu užívání atypických závěrů (36, 37). Doufejme, že do budoucna tato klasifikace poskytne urologům větší srozumitelnost patologických reportů, které budou mít přímý do‑ pad na další management pacienta. LITERATURA 1. Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Switzerland Springer; 2016. 2. Koss LG, Deitch D, Ramanathan R, Sherman AB. Diagnostic value of cytology of voided urine. Acta cytol. 1985; 29(5): 810–816. 3. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Vrbin CM, Geisinger KR. Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 127(6): 946–953. 4. Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999; 87(3): 118–128. 5. Badalament RA, Kimmel M, Gay H, et al. The sensitivity of flow cytometry compared with conventional cytology in the detection of superficial bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 59(12): 2078–2085. 6. Badalament RA, Hermansen DK, Kimmel M, et al. The sensitivity of bladder wash flow cytometry, bladder wash cytology, and voided cytology in the detection of bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 60(7): 1423–1427. 7. Hermansen DK, Badalament RA, Bretton PR, et al. Voided urine flow cytometry in screening high‑risk patients for the presence of bladder cancer. J Occup Med. 1990; 32(9): 894–897. 8. Planz B, Jochims E, Deix T, et al. The role of urinary cytology for detection of bladder cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005; 31(3): 304–308. 9. Keller AK, Jensen JB. Voided urine versus bladder washing cytology for detection of urothelial carcinoma: which is better? Scand J Urol. 2017; 51(4): 290–292. 10. Son SM, Koo JH, Choi SY, et al. Evaluation of urine cytology in urothelial carcinoma patients: a compa‑ rison of CellprepPlus(R) liquid‑based cytology and conventional smear. Korean J Pathol. 2012; 46(1): 68–74. 11. Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin‑layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001; 12(5): 306–313. 12. Hwang EC, Park SH, Jung SI, et al. Usefulness of liquid‑based preparation in urine cytology. Int J Urol. 2007; 14(7): 626–629. 13. Laucirica R, Bentz JS, Souers RJ, et al. Do liquid‑based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases? Observations from the College of American Pathologists Inter‑ laboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134(1): 19–22. 14. Luo Y, She DL, Xiong H, Yang L, Fu SJ. Diagnostic value of liquid‑based cytology in urothelial carcinoma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. PloS one. 2015; 10(8): e0134940. 15. VandenBussche CJ, Rosenthal DL, Olson MT. Adequacy in voided urine cytology specimens: the role of volume and a repeat void upon predictive values for high‑grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016; 124(3): 174–180. 16. Thiryayi SA, Rana DN. Urine cytopathology: challenges, pitfalls, and mimics. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012; 40(11): 1019–1034. 17. Babjuk M, Koštířová M, Mudra K, et al. Stanovení proteinu blízkého faktoru H komplementu (BTA TRAK A BTA STAT), fragmentů cytokeratinů 8 a 18 (UBC IRMA A UBC RAPID) a cytologie moči při neinvazivní detekci nádorů močového měchýře. Ces Urol 2001; 5(3): 4–8.