149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26153872)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Diagnostic sensitivity and risk of malignancy for bile duct brushings categorized by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytopathology.
Layfield LJ; Zhang T; Esebua M
Diagn Cytopathol; 2022 Jan; 50(1):24-27. PubMed ID: 34800330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Risk of malignancy associated with the diagnostic categories proposed by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for pancreaticobiliary specimens: An institutional experience.
Gonzalez-Mancera MS; Ahmadian SS; Gomez-Fernandez C; Velez-Torres J; Jorda M; García-Buitrago MT
Diagn Cytopathol; 2022 Feb; 50(2):49-56. PubMed ID: 34856075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Interobserver agreement in pathologic evaluation of bile duct biopsies.
Liu YJ; Rogers J; Liu YZ; Gui X; Jalikis F; Koch L; Swanson PE; Truong CD; Yeh MM
Hum Pathol; 2021 Jan; 107():29-38. PubMed ID: 33129823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines for respiratory cytology: Reproducibility of categories among observers.
Layfield LJ; Esebua M; Dodd L; Giorgadze T; Schmidt RL
Cytojournal; 2018; 15():22. PubMed ID: 30294354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. [Evaluation of a new sequence of magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography in thick cut and one shot acquisition].
Mougenel JL; Hudziak H; Ernst O; Dupas B; Lefevre F; Barraud H; Watelet J; Cezard O; Regent D; Bigard MA
Gastroenterol Clin Biol; 2000 Oct; 24(10):888-95. PubMed ID: 11084424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Interpretation of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy of indeterminate biliary strictures: is there any interobserver agreement?
Talreja JP; Sethi A; Jamidar PA; Singh SK; Kwon RS; Siddiqui UD; Sawhney M; Bakhru MR; Gaidhane M; Kline P; Sauer BG; Kahaleh M
Dig Dis Sci; 2012 Dec; 57(12):3299-302. PubMed ID: 22875310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
