114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15192949)
21. Biliary dysplasia in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: additional value of DNA ploidity.
Halme L; Arola J; Numminen K; Krogerus L; Mäkisalo H; Färkkilä M
Liver Int; 2012 May; 32(5):783-9. PubMed ID: 22098817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Effectiveness of a new long cytology brush in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective study.
Fogel EL; deBellis M; McHenry L; Watkins JL; Chappo J; Cramer H; Schmidt S; Lazzell-Pannell L; Sherman S; Lehman GA
Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Jan; 63(1):71-7. PubMed ID: 16377319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. DNA image cytometry on sections as compared with image cytometry on smears and flow cytometry in melanoma.
Klapperstück T; Wohlrab W
Cytometry; 1996 Sep; 25(1):82-9. PubMed ID: 8875057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Complementary value of DNA flow cytometry and image morphometry in detection of malignant cells in effusion fluids.
Bisht B; Handa U; Mohan H; Lehl SS
Malays J Pathol; 2014 Aug; 36(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 25194530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Biliary tract brush cytology.
Vadmal MS; Byrne-Semmelmeier S; Smilari TF; Hajdu SI
Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(4):533-8. PubMed ID: 10934944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Evaluation of brush cytology and DNA image cytometry for the detection of cancer of the oral cavity.
Kaur M; Handa U; Mohan H; Dass A
Diagn Cytopathol; 2016 Mar; 44(3):201-5. PubMed ID: 26739314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of bile duct lesions.
Byrne MF; Gerke H; Mitchell RM; Stiffler HL; McGrath K; Branch MS; Baillie J; Jowell PS
Endoscopy; 2004 Aug; 36(8):715-9. PubMed ID: 15280978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. An Optimized Set of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Probes for Detection of Pancreatobiliary Tract Cancer in Cytology Brush Samples.
Barr Fritcher EG; Voss JS; Brankley SM; Campion MB; Jenkins SM; Keeney ME; Henry MR; Kerr SM; Chaiteerakij R; Pestova EV; Clayton AC; Zhang J; Roberts LR; Gores GJ; Halling KC; Kipp BR
Gastroenterology; 2015 Dec; 149(7):1813-1824.e1. PubMed ID: 26327129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Flow cytometric analysis and cytopathology of body cavity fluids.
Stonesifer KJ; Xiang JH; Wilkinson EJ; Benson NA; Braylan RC
Acta Cytol; 1987; 31(2):125-30. PubMed ID: 3469844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Diagnostic Utility of Cytology in Assessment of Ploidy Status in Potentially Malignant Oral Disorders.
Dineshkumar T; Srikanth P; Nagarathinam AE; Rajkumar K; Priyadharini S; Shruthi TA
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Oct; 20(10):3145-3151. PubMed ID: 31653166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Applications of flow cytometric DNA analysis to diagnostic cytology.
Cibas ES
Diagn Cytopathol; 1995 Aug; 13(2):166-71. PubMed ID: 8542800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Image analysis versus flow cytometry for DNA ploidy quantitation of solid tumors: a comparison of six methods of sample preparation.
Danque PO; Chen HB; Patil J; Jagirdar J; Orsatti G; Paronetto F
Mod Pathol; 1993 May; 6(3):270-5. PubMed ID: 8346174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Utility and proposed algorithm of CSF flow cytometry in hematologic malignancies.
Tawfik B; Brown L; Fuda F; Chen W; Niu S; Sailors J; Sadeghi N
Ann Hematol; 2018 Sep; 97(9):1707-1716. PubMed ID: 29680874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Evaluation of flow cytometric immunophenotyping and DNA analysis for detection of malignant cells in serosal cavity fluids.
Sayed DM; el-Attar MM; Hussein AA
Diagn Cytopathol; 2009 Jul; 37(7):498-504. PubMed ID: 19217060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Prospective, blinded comparison of cytology and DNA-image cytometry of brush biopsies for early detection of oral malignancy.
Kämmerer PW; Koch FP; Santoro M; Babaryka G; Biesterfeld S; Brieger J; Kunkel M
Oral Oncol; 2013 May; 49(5):420-6. PubMed ID: 23318121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Direct uterine sampling with the Tao brush sampler using a liquid-based preparation method for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia: a feasibility study.
Kipp BR; Medeiros F; Campion MB; Distad TJ; Peterson LM; Keeney GL; Halling KC; Clayton AC
Cancer; 2008 Aug; 114(4):228-35. PubMed ID: 18548528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A prospective randomised study of dense Infinity cytological brush versus regularly used brush in pancreaticobiliary malignancy.
Kylänpää L; Boyd S; Ristimäki A; Lindström O; Udd M; Halttunen J
Scand J Gastroenterol; 2016; 51(5):590-3. PubMed ID: 26642244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of DNA flow cytometric analysis of body cavity fluids with conventional cytology.
Lima CE; Mizushima Y; Masuda S; Kitagawa M
In Vivo; 1994; 8(3):359-62. PubMed ID: 7803718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Multiparameter flow cytometric DNA analysis of effusions: a prospective study of 36 cases compared with routine cytology and immunohistochemistry.
Joseph MG; Banerjee D; Harris P; Gibson S; McFadden RG
Mod Pathol; 1995 Aug; 8(6):686-93. PubMed ID: 8532707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
