188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18677761)
1. 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]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Brush cytology of the extrahepatic biliary tract: comparison of cytologic features of adenocarcinoma and benign biliary strictures.
Cohen MB; Wittchow RJ; Johlin FC; Bottles K; Raab SS
Mod Pathol; 1995 Jun; 8(5):498-502. PubMed ID: 7675767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. ThinPrep evaluation of fluid samples aspirated from cystic ovarian masses.
Lu D; Davila RM; Pinto KR; Lu DW
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 May; 30(5):320-4. PubMed ID: 15108229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Interobserver reproducibility and agreement with original diagnosis in the categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" for bile and pancreatic duct brushings.
Layfield LJ; Schmidt RL; Chadwick BE; Esebua M; Witt BL
Diagn Cytopathol; 2015 Oct; 43(10):797-801. PubMed ID: 26153872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Significance of atypia in pancreatic and bile duct brushings: follow-up analysis of the categories atypical and suspicious for malignancy.
Chadwick BE; Layfield LJ; Witt BL; Schmidt RL; Cox RN; Adler DG
Diagn Cytopathol; 2014 Apr; 42(4):285-91. PubMed ID: 24167030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Factors Impacting the Performance Characteristics of Bile Duct Brushings: A Clinico-Cytopathologic Analysis of 253 Patients.
Hacihasanoglu E; Memis B; Pehlivanoglu B; Avadhani V; Freedman AA; Goodman MM; Adsay NV; Reid MD
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2018 Jul; 142(7):863-870. PubMed ID: 29582676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Diagnostic utility of peroral cholangioscopy for various bile-duct lesions.
Fukuda Y; Tsuyuguchi T; Sakai Y; Tsuchiya S; Saisyo H
Gastrointest Endosc; 2005 Sep; 62(3):374-82. PubMed ID: 16111955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Benign, dysplastic, or malignant--making sense of endoscopic bile duct brush cytology: results in 149 consecutive patients.
Lee JG; Leung JW; Baillie J; Layfield LJ; Cotton PB
Am J Gastroenterol; 1995 May; 90(5):722-6. PubMed ID: 7733076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cytologic predictors of malignancy in bile duct brushings: a multi-reviewer analysis of 60 cases.
Avadhani V; Hacihasanoglu E; Memis B; Pehlivanoglu B; Hanley KZ; Krishnamurti U; Krasinskas AM; Osunkoya AO; Daniels LM; Freedman AA; Goodman M; Adsay V; Reid MD
Mod Pathol; 2017 Sep; 30(9):1273-1286. PubMed ID: 28664934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Low-grade urothelial carcinoma: reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on ThinPrep.
Xin W; Raab SS; Michael CW
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Sep; 29(3):125-9. PubMed ID: 12951678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
