137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32457409)
1. Tiny but mighty: use of next generation sequencing on discarded cytocentrifuged bile duct brushing specimens to increase sensitivity of cytological diagnosis.
Harbhajanka A; Michael CW; Janaki N; Gokozan HN; Wasman J; Bomeisl P; Yoest J; Sadri N
Mod Pathol; 2020 Oct; 33(10):2019-2025. PubMed ID: 32457409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Next-Generation Sequencing and Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Have Comparable Performance Characteristics in the Analysis of Pancreaticobiliary Brushings for Malignancy.
Dudley JC; Zheng Z; McDonald T; Le LP; Dias-Santagata D; Borger D; Batten J; Vernovsky K; Sweeney B; Arpin RN; Brugge WR; Forcione DG; Pitman MB; Iafrate AJ
J Mol Diagn; 2016 Jan; 18(1):124-30. PubMed ID: 26596524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Diagnostic value of targeted next-generation sequencing in patients with suspected pancreatic or periampullary cancer.
Sibinga Mulder BG; Mieog JSD; Farina Sarasqueta A; Handgraaf HJ; Vasen HFA; Swijnenburg RJ; Luelmo SAC; Feshtali S; Inderson A; Vahrmeijer AL; Bonsing BA; Wezel TV; Morreau H
J Clin Pathol; 2018 Mar; 71(3):246-252. PubMed ID: 28775172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
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. 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]
12. Role of Ancillary Techniques in Biliary Cytopathology Specimens.
Layfield L
Acta Cytol; 2020; 64(1-2):175-181. PubMed ID: 31121596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The Cytomorphologic and Molecular Assessment of Bile Duct Brushing Specimens.
Hilburn CF; Pitman MB
Surg Pathol Clin; 2022 Sep; 15(3):469-478. PubMed ID: 36049829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Significance of KRAS mutation testing in biliary brushing cytology specimens: A 10-year retrospective review.
Sun T; Zuo T; Hui P; Cai G
Cancer Cytopathol; 2022 Jul; 130(7):558-565. PubMed ID: 35417072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
