Федосеева Е. С.¹ , Фурминская Е. Ю.^{1, 2}, Гриневич В. Н.^{1, 3}

¹ Медицинский радиологический научный центр им. А.Ф. Цыба – филиал ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр радиологии» Минздрава России; Россия, 249036 Обнинск, ул. Королева, 4; 

² ФГБУ «Центральная клиническая больница с поликлиникой» Управления делами Президента Российской Федерации; Россия, 121359 Москва, ул. Маршала Тимошенко, 15; 

³ Московский научно-исследовательский онкологический институт им. П.А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр радиологии» Минздрава России; Россия, 125284 Москва, 2-й Боткинский проезд, 3

1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209–49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2022 году. Под ред. Каприна А.Д., Старинского В.В., Шахзадовой А.О. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2022. 239 с. The cancer care in Russia in 2022. Ed. by Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Shahzadova A.O. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena – filial FGBU “NMITS radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2022. 239 p. (In Russ.)

3. Гладков О.А., Зуков Р.А., Матвеев В.Б. и др. Практические рекомендации по лекарственному лечению рака мочевого пузыря. Злокачественные опухоли: Практические рекомендации RUSSCO 2022;12(3s2):589–606. DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2022-12-3s2-589-606 Gladkov O.A., Zukov R.A., Matveev V.B. et al. Practice guidelines for drug treatment of the bladder cancer. Zlokachestvennye opukholi: Prakticheskie rekomendatsii RUSSCO = Malignant Tumors: Practical Recommendations RUSSCO 2022;12(3s2): 589–606. DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2022-12-3s2-589-606

4. Bellmunt J., Orsola A., Maldonado X., Kataja V. Bladder cancer: ESMO Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014;25 Suppl 3:iii40−8. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu223

5. Rosenthal D.L, Wojcik E.M., Kurtycz D.F. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology. Springer, 2016.

6. Yafi F.A., Brimo F., Steinberg J. et al. Prospective analysis of sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology and other urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2015;33(2):66.e25–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.06.008

7. Karakiewicz P.I., Benayoun S., Zippe C. et al. Institutional variability in the accuracy of urinary cytology for predicting recurrence of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. BJU Int 2006;97(5):997–1001. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06036.x

8. van Rhijn B.W., van der Poel H.G., van der Kwast T.H. Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2005;47(6):736–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.03.014

9. DeMay R. The art & science of cytopathology. 2nd edn. Vol. 1. Chicago: American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, 2012. P. 437.

10. Epstein J.I., Amin M.B., Reuter V.R. et al. The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Bladder Consensus Conference Committee. Am J Surg Pathol 1998;22(12):1435–48. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199812000-00001

11. Koss L.G. Bladder cancer from a perspective of 40 years. J Cell Biochem Suppl 1992;16I:23–9. DOI: 10.1002/jcb.240501305

12. Spruck C.H., Ohneseit P.F., Gonzalez-Zulueta M. et al. Two molecular pathways to transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer Res 1994;54(3):784–8.

13. Lopez-Beltran A., Cimadamore A., Montironi R., Cheng L. Molecular pathology of urothelial carcinoma. Hum Pathol 2021;113:67–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2021.04.001

14. Comprehensive molecular characterization of urothelial bladder carcinoma. Nature 2014;507(7492):315–22. DOI: 10.1038/nature12965

15. Vollmer R.T. A review of outcomes for stage Ta bladder tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 2016;146(2):215–20. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqw103

16. Kamoun A., de Reyniès A., Allory Y. et al. A consensus molecular classification of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2020;77(4):420–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.006

17. Raspollini M.R., Comperat E.M., Lopez-Beltran A. et al. News in the classification of WHO 2022 bladder tumors. Pathologica 2022;115(1):32–40. DOI: 10.32074/1591-951X-838

18. Humphrey P.A., Moch H., Cubilla A.L. et al. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs – part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur Urol 2016;70(1):106–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.028

19. Chandrasekar T., Erlich A., Zlotta A.R. Molecular characterization of bladder cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2018;19(12):107. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-018-0853-5

20. Gui Y., Guo G., Huang Y. et al. Frequent mutations of chromatin remodeling genes in transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Nat Genet 2011;43(9):875–8. DOI:10.1038/ng.907

21. Pietzak E.J., Bagrodia A., Cha E.K. et al. Next-generation sequencing of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer reveals potential biomarkers and rational therapeutic targets. Eur Urol 2017;72(6):952–959. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.05.032

22. McKenney J.K. Precursor lesions of the urinary bladder. Histopathology 2019;74(1):68–76. DOI: 10.1111/his.13762

23. Wojcik E.M., Kurtycz D.F.I., Rosenthal D.L. We’ll always have Paris: The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2022;11(2):62–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2021.12.003.

24. Zhang M.L., Guo A.X., VandenBussche C.J. Morphologists overestimate the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124(9):669–77. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21735

25. Wojcik E.M., Kurtycz D.F.I., Rosenthal D.L. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology. Springer International Publishing, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-88686-8

26. McIntire P.J., Snow J.T., Elsoukkary S.S. et al. 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. Cancer Cytopathol 2019;127(2):120–4. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22061.

27. Frost J.K. The cell in health and disease. An evaluation of cellular morphologic expression of biologic behavior. 2nd, revised edn. Karger, 1986.

28. Renshaw A.A. Subclassifying atypical urinary cytology specimens. Cancer 2000;90(4):222–9.

29. Murphy W.M., Soloway M.S., Jukkola A.F. et al. Urinary cytology and bladder cancer. The cellular features of transitional cell neoplasms. Cancer 1984;53(7):1555–65. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19840401)53:7<1555::aidcncr2820530723>3.0.co;2-g.

30. Raab S.S., Lenel J.C., Cohen M.B. Low grade transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cytologic diagnosis by key features as identified by logistic regression analysis. Cancer 1994;74(5):1621–6. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940901)74:5<1621::aidcncr2820740521>3.0.co;2-e.

31. Hughes J.H., Raab S.S., Cohen M.B. The cytologic diagnosis of low-grade transitional cell carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114 Suppl:S59–67. DOI: 10.1093/ppr/114.1.s59

32. Xin W., Raab S.S., Michael C.W. Low-grade urothelial carcinoma: reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on Thin Prep. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29(3):125–9. DOI: 10.1002/dc.10311

33. McCroskey Z., Kliethermes S., Bahar B. et al. Is a consistent cytologic diagnosis of low-grade urothelial carcinoma in instrumented urinary tract cytologic specimens possible? A comparison between cytomorphologic features of low-grade urothelial carcinoma and non-neoplastic changes shows extensive overlap, making a reliable diagnosis impossible. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015;4(2):90–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2014.10.006

34. Barkan G.A., Wojcik E.M., Nayar R. et al. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology: the quest to develop a standardised terminology. Adv Anat Pathol 2016;23(4):193–201 DOI: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000118

35. Stanzione N., Ahmed T., Fung P.C. et al. The continual impact of the Paris System on urine cytology, a 3-year experience. Cytopathology 2020;31(1):35–40. DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12777

36. Vallamreddy S.K.R., Begam K.V., Pratima J. Implementation of the Paris system versus institutional diagnosis in the performance of urinary cytology: a 5 years correlative study of 74 cases. IP Arch Cytol Histopathol Res 2019;4(3):193–8.

37. Hattori M., Nishimura Y., Toyonaga M. et al. Cytological significance of abnormal squamous cells in urinary cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40(9):798–803. DOI: 10.1002/dc.21645

38. Owens C.L., Ali S.Z. Atypical squamous cells in exfoliative urinary cytology: clinicopathologic correlates. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;33(6):394–8. DOI: 10.1002/dc.20344

39. Johansson S.L., Cohen S.M. Epidemiology and etiology of bladder cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 1997;13(5):291–8. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2388(199709/10)13:5<291::aid-ssu2>3.0. co;2-8

40. Alanee S., Alvarado-Cabrero I., Murugan P. et al. Update of the International Consultation on Urological Diseases on bladder cancer 2018: non-urothelial cancers of the urinary bladder. World J Urol 2019;37(1):107–14. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2421-5.

41. Sojitra P., Venkataraman G., Masoom S. et al. Dysplastic squamous cells are frequently present in urine cytology specimens of patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Acta Cytol 2012;56(4):408–12. DOI: 10.1159/000337644

42. Koss L.G., Hoda R.S. Koss’s cytology of the urinary tract with histopathologic correlations. New York: Springer Press, 2012.

43. Shen S.S., Al-Ahmadie H.H., Mahfouz S.M. Squamous cell neoplasms. In: WHO classification of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs. Ed. by Moch H., Humphrey P.A., Ulbright T.M., Reuter V.E. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2016. P. 108–110.

44. Bates A.W., Baithun S.I. Secondary neoplasms of the bladder are histological mimics of nontransitional cell primary tumours: clinicopathological and histological features of 282 cases. Histopathology 2000;36(1):32–40. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2000.00797.x

45. Савостикова М.В., Федосеева Е.С. Цитоморфологическая и иммуноцитохимическая диагностика вторичных опухолевых поражений мочевого пузыря. Новости клинической цитологии России 2020;24(4):5–11. DOI: 10.24412/1562-4943-2020-4-0001 Savostikova M.V., Fedoseeva E.S. Cytomorphological and immunocytochemical diagnosis of secondary tumors of bladder. Novosti klinicheskoy citologii Rossii = Russian News of Clinical Cytology 2020;24(4):5–11. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24412/1562-4943-2020-4-0001

46. Xiao G.Q., Chow J., Unger P.D. Metastatic tumors to the urinary bladder: clinic pathologic study of 11 cases. Int J Surg Pathol 2012;20(4):342–8. DOI: 10.1177/1066896911428736

47. Velcheti V., Govindan R. Metastatic cancer involving bladder: a review. Can J Urol 2007;14(1):3443–8.

48. Arbyn M., Verdoodt F., Snijders P.J. et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2014;15(2):172–83. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70570-9

49. Rohner E., Rahangdale L., Sanusi B. et al. Test accuracy of human papillomavirus in urine for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Microbiol 2020;58(3):e01443–19. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01443-19

50. Gupta R., Paner G.P., Amin M.B. Neoplasms of the upper urinary tract: a review with focus on urothelial carcinoma of the pelvicalyceal system and aspects related to its diagnosis and reporting. Adv Anat Pathol 2008;15(3):127–39. DOI: 10.1097/PAP.0b013e31817145a9

51. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70(1):7–30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21590.

52. Rouprêt M., Babjuk M., Compérat E. et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2017 update. Eur Urol 2018;73(1):111–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.036.

53. Margulis V., Shariat S.F., Matin S.F. et al. Outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy: a series from the upper tract urothelial carcinoma collaboration. Cancer 2009;115(6):1224–33. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24135

54. Commander C.W., Johnson D.C., Raynor M.C. et al. Detection of upper tract urothelial malignancies by computed tomography urography in patients referred for Hematuria at a large tertiary referral Center. Urology 2017;102:31–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.10.055

55. Xing J., Monaco S.E., Pantanowitz L. Utility of the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology in upper urinary tract specimens. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2018;7(6):311–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2018.07.006

56. Chan E., Balassanian R., Tabatabai Z.L. et al. Improved diagnostic precision of urine cytology by implementation of the Paris system and the use of cell blocks. Cancer Cytopathol 2018;126(9):809–16. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22034

57. Dantey K., Pantanowitz L., Xing J. et al. Cell block preparation in urine cytology: examination of utility and workflow in an academic practice. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2019;8(2):61–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2018.11.001

58. McIntire P.J., Elsoukkary S.S., Robinson B.D. et al. High-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology: different spaces – different faces, highlighting morphologic variance. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2021;10(1):36–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2020.08.001

59. VandenBussche C.J., Rosenthal D.L., Olson M.T. 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)174–80. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21634

60. Rezaee N., Tabatabai Z.L., Olson M.T. Adequacy of voided urine specimens prepared by ThinPrep and evaluated using The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2017;6(4):155–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2017.04.001

61. Xing J., Yan Q., Monaco S.E., Pantanowitz L. Determination of appropriate urine volume cutoff values for voided urine specimens to assess adequacy. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2019;8(2):89–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2018.10.004

62. Renshaw A.A., Gould E.W. Evidence-based adequacy criteria for instrumented urine cytology using cytospin preparations. Diagn Cytopathol 2018;46(6):520–1. DOI: 10.1002/dc.23890

63. Bastacky S., Ibrahim S., Wilczynski S.P. et al. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999;87(3):118–28. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990625)87:3<118::aidcncr4>3.0.co;2-n

64. Layfeld L.J., Elsheikh T.M., Fili A. et al. Review of the state of the art and recommendations of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for urinary cytology procedures and reporting: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Practice Guidelines Task Force. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30(1):24–30. DOI: 10.1002/dc.10401

65. Prather J., Arville B., Chatt G. et al. Evidence-based adequacy criteria for urinary bladder barbotage cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015;4(2):57–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2014.09.206

66. Gill G.W. Cytopreparation: principles & practice. In: Essentials in cytopathology. Vol. 12. Ed. by Rosenthal D.L. New York: Springer, 2013.

67. Crabtree W.N., Murphy W.M. The value of ethanol as a fixative in urinary cytology. Acta Cytol 1980;24(5):452–5.

68. Савостикова М.В., Кудайбергенова А.Г., Федосеева Е.С. и др. Проект рекомендаций по цитоморфологической диагностике патологии уринарного тракта. Онкопатология 2019;2(1–2): 52–67. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2016-12-4-110-118 Savostikova M.V., Kudaybergenova A.G., Fedoseeva E.S. et al. The draft of references on cytomorphological diagnosis of the urinary tract pathology. Onkopatologiya = Oncopathology 2019;2(1–2):52–67. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2016-12-4-110-118

69. Kurtycz D.F.I., Wojcik E.M., Rosenthal D.L. Perceptions of Paris: an international survey in preparation for The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology 2.0 (TPS 2.0). J Am Soc Cytopathol 2023;12(1):66–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2022.09.002

70. Straccia P., Bizzarro T., Fadda G., Pierconti F. Comparison between cytospin and liquid-based cytology in urine specimens classified according to The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124(7):519–23. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21709

71. Bennett W.L., Russell D.K., Evans S.K., Agrawal T. Cell blocks in urine cytopathology: do they add value to the diagnosis? A pilot study. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2021;10(1):47–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2020.08.003

72. Chang S.S., Boorjian S.A., Chou R. et al. Diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: AUA/SUO guideline. J Urol 2016;196(4):1021–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.049

73. Soria F., Droller M.J., Lotan Y. et al. An up-to-date catalog of available urinary biomarkers for the surveillance of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. World J Urol 2018;36(12):1981–95. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2380-x

74. Hajdinjak T. UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing. Urol Oncol 2008;26(6):646–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.06.002

75. Bubendorf L., Piaton E. UroVysion® multiprobe FISH in the triage of equivocal urinary cytology cases. Ann Pathol 2012;32(6):e52–6, 438–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.annpat.2012.09.207

76. Vlajnic T., Gut A., Savic S. et al. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology in daily practice with emphasis on ancillary testing by multiprobe FISH. J Clin Pathol 2020;73(2):90–5. DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206109

77. Kim P.H., Sukhu R., Cordon B.H. et al. Reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for suspicious urinary cytology in patients with bladder cancer with negative surveillance cystoscopy. BJU Int 2014;114(3):354–9. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12516

78. Schlomer B.J., Ho R., Sagalowsky A. et al. Prospective validation of the clinical usefulness of reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in patients with atypical cytology for the detection of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 2010;183(1):62–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.157

79. Gruschwitz T., Gajda M., Enkelmann A. et al. FISH analysis of washing urine from the upper urinary tract for the detection of urothelial cancers. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46(9):1769–74. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-014-0714-1

80. Xu C., Zeng Q., Hou J. et al. Utility of a modality combining FISH and cytology in upper tract urothelial carcinoma detection in voided urine samples of Chinese patients. Urology 2011;77(3):636–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.07.498

81. Sassa N., Iwata H., Kato M. et al. Diagnostic utility of UroVysion combined with conventional urinary cytology for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Am J Clin Pathol 2019;151(5):469–78. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqy170

82. Gayed B.A., Seideman C., Lotan Y. Cost-effectiveness of fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with atypical cytology for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 2013;190(4):1181–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.117.

83. Oliveira M.C.D., Caires H.R., Oliveira M.J. et al. Urinary biomarkers in bladder cancer: where do we stand and potential role of extracellular vesicles. Cancers 2020;12(6):1400. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12061400

84. Wolfs J.R.E., Hermans T.J.N., Koldewijn E.L., van de Kerkhof D. Novel urinary biomarkers ADXBLADDER and bladder EpiCheck for diagnostics of bladder cancer: A review. Urol Oncol 2021;39(3):161–170. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.11.014

85. Allison D.B., VandenBussche C.J. A review of urine ancillary tests in the era of the Paris system. Acta Cytol 2020;64(1–2):182–92. DOI: 10.1159/000499027

86. Sapre N., Anderson P.D., Costello A.J. et al. Gene-based urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer: an unfulfilled promise? Urol Oncol 2014;32(1):48e9–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.07.002

87. Tan W.S., Tan W.P., Tan M.Y. et al. Novel urinary biomarkers for the detection of bladder cancer: A systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2018;69:39–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.05.012

88. Robertson A.G., Kim J., Al-Ahmadie H. et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cell 2017;171(3):540–556.e25. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.007

89. van Kessel K.E., Beukers W., Lurkin I. et al. Validation of a DNA methylation-mutation urine assay to select patients with hematuria for cystoscopy. J Urol 2017;197(3 Pt 1):590–595. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.118

90. Harris T., Sheel A., Zong Y. et al. Cytologically targeted nextgeneration sequencing: a synergy for diagnosing urothelial carcinoma. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2021;10(1):94–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2020.10.001

91. Babjuk M., Burger M., Capoun O. et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (Ta, T1, and Carcinoma in Situ). Eur Urol 2022;81(1):75–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.010

92. Русаков И.Г., Теплов А.А., Ульянов Р.В., Филоненко Е.В. Флуоресцентная цистоскопия у больных немышечно-инвазивным раком мочевого пузыря. Biomedical Photonics 2015;4(3):29–35. DOI: 10.24931/2413-9432-2015-4-3-29-35 Rusakov I.G., Teplov A.A., Ulianov R.V., Filonenko E.V. Fluorescence cystoscopy in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Biomedical Photonics 2015;4(3):29–35. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24931/2413-9432-2015-4-3-29-35

93. Lerner S.P., Goh A. Novel endoscopic diagnosis for bladder cancer. Cancer 2015;121(2):169–78. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28905

94. Witjes J.A., Babjuk M., Gontero P. et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of hexaminolevulinate-guided blue-light cystoscopy: evidence review and updated expert recommendations. Eur Urol 2014;66(5):863–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.037

95. Meilleroux J., Daniel G., Aziza J. et al. One year of experience using the Paris System for reporting urinary cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2018;126(6):430–6. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21999

96. Bakkar R., Mirocha J., Fan X. et al. Impact of the Paris system for reporting urine cytopathology on predictive values of the equivocal diagnostic categories and interobserver agreement. Cytojournal 2019;16:21. DOI: 10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_30_19

97. Vosoughi A., Ordobazari A., Lora Gonzalez M.A. et al. The Paris System “atypical urothelial cells” category: can the current criteria be improved? J Am Soc Cytopathol 2021;10(1):3–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2020.04.015

98. Redman R., Zalaznick H., Mazzaferri E.L. et al. The impact of assessing specimen adequacy and number of needle passes for fine-needle aspiration biopsy of thyroid nodules. Thyroid 2006;16(1):55–60. DOI: 10.1089/thy.2006.16.55

99. VandenBussche C.J., Allison D.B., Gupta M. et al. A 20-year and 46,000-specimen journey to Paris reveals the influence of reporting systems and passive peer feedback on pathologist practice patterns. Cancer Cytopathol 2018;126(6):381–9. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22006

100. de Paula R., Oliveira A., Nunes W. et al. Two-year study on the application of the Paris system for urinary cytology in a cancer centre. Cytopathology 2020;31(1):41–6. DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12780

101. Granados R., Duarte J.A., Corrales T. et al. Applying the Paris system for reporting urine cytology increases the rate of atypical urothelial cells in benign cases: a need for patient management recommendations. Acta Cytol 2017;61(1):71–6. DOI: 10.1159/000452092