148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24167030)
1. 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]
2. The outcomes of "atypical" and "suspicious" bile duct brushings in the identification of pancreaticobiliary tumors: Follow-up analysis of surgical resection specimens.
Choi WT; Swanson PE; Grieco VS; Wang D; Westerhoff M
Diagn Cytopathol; 2015 Nov; 43(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 26221777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Identification of factors predictive of malignancy in patients with atypical biliary brushing results obtained via ERCP.
Witt BL; Kristen Hilden RN; Scaife C; Chadwick B; Layfield L; Cory Johnston W; Safaee M; Siddiqui A; Adler DG
Diagn Cytopathol; 2013 Aug; 41(8):682-8. PubMed ID: 23008113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Diagnostic Performance of Bile Duct Brush Cytology with Risk of Malignancy of Standardized Categories in the Wake of World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Rath A; Pradeep I; Nigam JS
Acta Cytol; 2023; 67(6):639-649. PubMed ID: 37879315
[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. Significance of the diagnostic categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" in the cytologic diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.
Layfield LJ; Schmidt RL; Hirschowitz SL; Olson MT; Ali SZ; Dodd LL
Diagn Cytopathol; 2014 Apr; 42(4):292-6. PubMed ID: 24578254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Endoscopic brush cytology from the biliary duct system is still valuable.
Eiholm S; Thielsen P; Kromann-Andersen H
Dan Med J; 2013 Jul; 60(7):A4656. PubMed ID: 23809967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. KOC (K homology domain containing protein overexpressed in cancer) and S100A4-protein immunoreactivity improves the diagnostic sensitivity of biliary brushing cytology for diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancies.
Ligato S; Zhao H; Mandich D; Cartun RW
Diagn Cytopathol; 2008 Aug; 36(8):561-7. PubMed ID: 18618724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of endoscopic bile duct brushing in the evaluation of biliary strictures.
Trent V; Khurana KK; Pisharodi LR
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1999 Aug; 123(8):712-5. PubMed ID: 10420229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings.
Layfield LJ; Wax TD; Lee JG; Cotton PB
Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(1):11-8. PubMed ID: 7846997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Brush cytology of ductal strictures during ERCP.
Macken E; Drijkoningen M; Van Aken E; Van Steenbergen W
Acta Gastroenterol Belg; 2000; 63(3):254-9. PubMed ID: 11189981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Beyond cytomorphology: expanding the diagnostic potential for biliary cytology.
Chadwick BE
Diagn Cytopathol; 2012 Jun; 40(6):536-41. PubMed ID: 22619128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Routine brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for assessment of pancreatobiliary strictures.
Smoczynski M; Jablonska A; Matyskiel A; Lakomy J; Dubowik M; Marek I; Biernat W; Limon J
Gastrointest Endosc; 2012 Jan; 75(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 22078103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy of cytologic interpretation of pancreatic neoplasms by fine needle aspiration and pancreatic duct brushings.
Basir Z; Pello N; Dayer AM; Shidham VB; Komorowski RA
Acta Cytol; 2003; 47(5):733-8. PubMed ID: 14526670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
