144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12925981)
1. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings.
Siddiqui MT; Gokaslan ST; Saboorian MH; Carrick K; Ashfaq R
Cancer; 2003 Aug; 99(4):205-10. PubMed ID: 12925981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Split sample comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspirations.
Siddiqui MT; Gokaslan ST; Saboorian MH; Ashfaq R
Diagn Cytopathol; 2005 Feb; 32(2):70-5. PubMed ID: 15637676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases: review of findings and comparison of preparation methods.
Volmar KE; Vollmer RT; Routbort MJ; Creager AJ
Cancer; 2006 Aug; 108(4):231-8. PubMed ID: 16541448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures.
Kipp BR; Stadheim LM; Halling SA; Pochron NL; Harmsen S; Nagorney DM; Sebo TJ; Therneau TM; Gores GJ; de Groen PC; Baron TH; Levy MJ; Halling KC; Roberts LR
Am J Gastroenterol; 2004 Sep; 99(9):1675-81. PubMed ID: 15330900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Endoscopic bile duct brushing of malignant pancreatic biliary strictures: retrospective study with comparison of conventional smear and ThinPrep techniques.
Ylagan LR; Liu LH; Maluf HM
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Apr; 28(4):196-204. PubMed ID: 12672095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Use of the ThinPrep method in bile duct brushings: analysis of morphologic parameters associated with malignancy and determination of interobserver reliability.
Waugh MS; Guy CD; Maygarden SJ; Livasy CA; Jones CK; Volmar KE
Diagn Cytopathol; 2008 Sep; 36(9):651-6. PubMed ID: 18677761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Brush cytology of the biliary tract: retrospective study of 278 cases with histopathologic correlation.
Govil H; Reddy V; Kluskens L; Treaba D; Massarani-Wafai R; Selvaggi S; Gattuso P
Diagn Cytopathol; 2002 May; 26(5):273-7. PubMed ID: 11992366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Biliary brush cytology for the diagnosis of malignancy: a single center experience.
Stoos-Veić T; Bilić B; Kaić G; Ostović KT; Babić Z; Kujundzić M
Coll Antropol; 2010 Mar; 34(1):139-43. PubMed ID: 20432742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Utility of bile duct brushings for the early detection of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
Moff SL; Clark DP; Maitra A; Pandey A; Thuluvath PJ
J Clin Gastroenterol; 2006 Apr; 40(4):336-41. PubMed ID: 16633106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Endobiliary brush biopsy: Intra- and interobserver variation in cytological evaluation of brushings from bile duct strictures.
Adamsen S; Olsen M; Jendresen MB; Holck S; Glenthøj A
Scand J Gastroenterol; 2006 May; 41(5):597-603. PubMed ID: 16638704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biliary tract cytology in specimens obtained by direct cholangiographic procedures: a study of 74 cases.
de Peralta-Venturina MN; Wong DK; Purslow MJ; Kini SR
Diagn Cytopathol; 1996 Jun; 14(4):334-48. PubMed ID: 8725136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. DNA image analysis combined with routine cytology improves diagnostic sensitivity of common bile duct brushing.
Krishnamurthy S; Katz RL; Shumate A; Strohlein K; Khanna A; Tucker SL; Raijman I; Lahoti S
Cancer; 2001 Jun; 93(3):229-35. PubMed ID: 11391612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA biopsy of bile duct and gallbladder: analysis of 53 cases.
Meara RS; Jhala D; Eloubeidi MA; Eltoum I; Chhieng DC; Crowe DR; Varadarajulu S; Jhala N
Cytopathology; 2006 Feb; 17(1):42-9. PubMed ID: 16417564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reprocessing unsatisfactory ThinPrep Papanicolaou test specimens increases sample adequacy and detection of significant cervicovaginal lesions.
Islam S; West AM; Saboorian MH; Ashfaq R
Cancer; 2004 Apr; 102(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 15098249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens.
Elsheikh TM; Kirkpatrick JL; Wu HH
Cancer; 2006 Jun; 108(3):144-9. PubMed ID: 16550571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bile duct brushings cytology--improving sensitivity of diagnosis using the ThinPrep technique: a review of 113 cases.
Sheehan MM; Fraser A; Ravindran R; McAteer D
Cytopathology; 2007 Aug; 18(4):225-33. PubMed ID: 17488259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cholangioscopic characterization of dominant bile duct stenoses in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
Tischendorf JJ; Krüger M; Trautwein C; Duckstein N; Schneider A; Manns MP; Meier PN
Endoscopy; 2006 Jul; 38(7):665-9. PubMed ID: 16673310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy.
de Luna R; Eloubeidi MA; Sheffield MV; Eltoum I; Jhala N; Jhala D; Chen VK; Chhieng DC
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Feb; 30(2):71-6. PubMed ID: 14755754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The role of ThinPrep cytology in the investigation of lung tumors.
Konofaos P; Tomos P; Malagari K; Karakatsani A; Pavlopoulos D; Lachanas E; Flessas M; Kostakis A; Karakitsos P
Surg Oncol; 2006 Nov; 15(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 17275290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. ERCP-directed brush cytology prepared by the Thinprep method: test performance and morphology of 149 cases.
Duggan MA; Brasher P; Medlicott SA
Cytopathology; 2004 Apr; 15(2):80-6. PubMed ID: 15056167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
