145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10613341)
21. Quantitative study of ductal breast cancer progression: nuclear signatures for evaluation of progression grade.
Mombello A; Mariuzzi L; Morelli L; Granchelli G; Rucco V; Tarocco E; da Silva VD; Thompson D; Bartels HG; Bartels PH; Mariuzzi G
Adv Clin Path; 2001 Jul; 5(3):59-70. PubMed ID: 11753877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Nuclear image morphometry and cytologic grade of breast carcinoma.
Dey P; Ghoshal S; Pattari SK
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 2000 Dec; 22(6):483-5. PubMed ID: 11147303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The predictive value of cytologic testing in women with the human immunodeficiency virus who have low-grade squamous cervical lesions: a substudy of a randomized, phase III chemoprevention trial.
Robinson WR; Luck MB; Kendall MA; Darragh TM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2003 Apr; 188(4):896-900. PubMed ID: 12712082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Analysis of nuclear chromatin distribution in cervical glandular abnormalities.
Watanabe S; Iwasaka T; Yokoyama M; Uchiyama M; Kaku T; Matsuyama T
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(4):505-13. PubMed ID: 15296341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. AgNOR protein quantity of cervical smears correlates with that of histological sections in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Pelusi G; Trerè D; Formelli G; Rinaldi AM; Derenzini M
Eur J Histochem; 1997; 41(2):105-10. PubMed ID: 9271702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Fractal dimension of chromatin texture of squamous intraepithelial lesions of cervix.
Dey P; Banik T
Diagn Cytopathol; 2012 Feb; 40(2):152-4. PubMed ID: 22246932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ and concurrent infiltrating carcinoma. A comparison of eight contemporary grading systems.
Leong AS; Sormunen RT; Vinyuvat S; Hamdani RW; Suthipintawong C
Am J Clin Pathol; 2001 May; 115(5):709-18. PubMed ID: 11345835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. An automated machine vision system for the histological grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).
Keenan SJ; Diamond J; McCluggage WG; Bharucha H; Thompson D; Bartels PH; Hamilton PW
J Pathol; 2000 Nov; 192(3):351-62. PubMed ID: 11054719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Cytometric evidence that cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and II are dysplasias rather than true neoplasias. An image analysis study of factors involved in the progression of cervical lesions.
Mariuzzi G; Santinelli A; Valli M; Sisti S; Montironi R; Mariuzzi L; Alberti R; Pisani E
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1992 Apr; 14(2):137-47. PubMed ID: 1590897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Nuclear cytometric changes in breast carcinogenesis.
Mommers EC; Poulin N; Sangulin J; Meijer CJ; Baak JP; van Diest PJ
J Pathol; 2001 Jan; 193(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 11169513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Influence of sample size on image cytometry of DNA ploidy measurements.
Boudry C; Herlin P; Coster M; Chermant JL
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1999 Jun; 21(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 10560493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Reliability of histopathologic diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Bellina JH; Dunlap WP; Riopelle MA
South Med J; 1982 Jan; 75(1):6-8. PubMed ID: 7054882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Cytologic nuclear grading of fine needle cytopunctures of breast carcinoma. Comparison with histologic nuclear grading and image cytometric data.
Briffod M; Le Doussal V; Spyratos F
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1997 Apr; 19(2):114-22. PubMed ID: 9113304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Diagnostic and prognostic use of DNA image cytometry in cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma.
Böcking A; Nguyen VQ
Cancer; 2004 Feb; 102(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 14968417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Evaluation of guidelines for observational management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in young women.
Dempster-Rivett K; Innes CR; Simcock BJ; Harker D; Williman JA; Van Der Griend RA; Whitehead M; Hibma M; Lawton BA; Fitzgerald P; Dudley NM; Petrich S; Faherty J; Bergzoll C; Eva L; Sadler L; Pather S; Wrede CD; Sykes PH
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Sep; 223(3):408.e1-408.e11. PubMed ID: 32109465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Quantitation of preinvasive neoplastic progression in animal models of chemical carcinogenesis.
Bacus JW; Bacus JV; Stoner GD; Moon RC; Kelloff GJ; Boone CW
J Cell Biochem Suppl; 1997; 28-29():21-38. PubMed ID: 9589347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Immunohistochemical localization of cdc6 in squamous and glandular neoplasia of the uterine cervix.
Bonds L; Baker P; Gup C; Shroyer KR
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2002 Oct; 126(10):1164-8. PubMed ID: 12296751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Differences in quantitative nuclear features between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with and without accompanying invasive carcinoma in the surrounding breast.
Susnik B; Worth A; Palcic B; Poulin N; LeRiche J
Anal Cell Pathol; 1995 Jan; 8(1):39-52. PubMed ID: 7734410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [Glandular neoplasia of cervix].
Bao DM; Shen DH
Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi; 2006 Dec; 35(12):744-6. PubMed ID: 17374260
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The immunoexpression of heparanase 2 in normal epithelium, intraepithelial, and invasive squamous neoplasia of the cervix.
Marques RM; Focchi GR; Theodoro TR; Castelo A; Pinhal MA; Nicolau SM
J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2012 Jul; 16(3):256-62. PubMed ID: 22453758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
