165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28664934)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Cytomorphologic characteristics of next-generation sequencing-positive bile duct brushing specimens.
Rosenbaum MW; Arpin R; Limbocker J; Casey B; Le L; Dudley J; Iafrate AJ; Pitman MB
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2020; 9(6):520-527. PubMed ID: 32839152
[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. Automated analysis of computerized morphological features of cell clusters associated with malignancy on bile duct brushing whole slide images.
Monabbati S; Leo P; Bera K; Michael CW; Nezami BG; Harbhajanka A; Madabhushi A
Cancer Med; 2023 Mar; 12(5):6365-6378. PubMed ID: 36281473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on bile duct brushings in the presence of stent associated changes: A retrospective analysis.
Goyal A; Sharaiha RZ; Alperstein SA; Siddiqui MT
Diagn Cytopathol; 2018 Oct; 46(10):826-832. PubMed ID: 30144340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of single operator cholangioscopy on accuracy of bile duct cytology.
Aly FZ; Mostofizadeh S; Jawaid S; Knapik J; Mukhtar F; Klein R
Diagn Cytopathol; 2020 Dec; 48(12):1230-1236. PubMed ID: 32770823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Bile duct brushing cytology: statistical analysis of proposed diagnostic criteria.
Renshaw AA; Madge R; Jiroutek M; Granter SR
Am J Clin Pathol; 1998 Nov; 110(5):635-40. PubMed ID: 9802349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
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. 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]
17. Diagnostic pitfalls and the value of fluorescence in situ hybridization as an adjunct to cytologic evaluation of bile duct brushings in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
Selvaggi SM
Diagn Cytopathol; 2023 Feb; 51(2):117-122. PubMed ID: 36181472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
