158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33039333)
1. Cell blocks in urine cytopathology: do they add value to the diagnosis? A pilot study.
Wilson BL; Russell D; Evans SK; Agrawal T
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):47-55. PubMed ID: 33039333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Urinary tract cytology: a cytologic-histopathologic correlation with The Paris System, an institutional study.
Danakas A; Sweeney M; Cheris S; Agrawal T
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):56-63. PubMed ID: 33132054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An institutional experience evaluating hTERT immunostaining in 100 consecutive ThinPrep urine specimens.
Xing J; Han M; Monaco SE; Dhir R; Roy S; Pantanowitz L
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):88-93. PubMed ID: 32354607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Experience on the use of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytopathology: review of the published literature.
Pastorello RG; Barkan GA; Saieg M
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):79-87. PubMed ID: 33160893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Targeted education as a method for reinforcing Paris System criteria and reducing urine cytology atypia rates.
Compton ML; Weiss VL; Barkan GA; Ely KA
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 32771394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology reduces atypia rates and does not alter the negative predictive value of urine cytology.
McIntire PJ; Kilic I; Pambuccian SE; Wojcik EM; Barkan GA
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):14-19. PubMed ID: 33221245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evidence-based diagnostic accuracy measurement in urine cytology using likelihood ratios.
Myles N; Auger M; Kanber Y; Caglar D; Kassouf W; Brimo F
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):71-78. PubMed ID: 33071190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The Paris System "atypical urothelial cells" category: can the current criteria be improved?
Vosoughi A; Ordobazari A; Lora Gonzalez MA; Guido LP; Skiba M; Campuzano-Zuluaga G; Kryvenko ON; Gomez-Fernandez C; Garcia-Buitrago M; Jorda M
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 32732113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Outcome analysis and negative predictive value of the "unsatisfactory/nondiagnostic" category of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology.
Abro S; Nomani L; Wojcik EM; Pambuccian SE; Chatt G; Barkan GA
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):64-70. PubMed ID: 33279453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Utility of the Paris System in Reporting Urine Cytology.
Malviya K; Fernandes G; Naik L; Kothari K; Agnihotri M
Acta Cytol; 2017; 61(2):145-152. PubMed ID: 28380477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Causes of false-negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology.
Lee PJ; Owens CL; Lithgow MY; Jiang Z; Fischer AH
Diagn Cytopathol; 2016 Dec; 44(12):994-999. PubMed ID: 27781412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cyto-histo correlations of plasmacytoid and micropapillary variants of high-grade urothelial carcinoma: do they fit well in The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology?
Suo L; Vega I; Thrall M
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):20-24. PubMed ID: 32620533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Paris System for reporting urinary cytology in daily practice with emphasis on ancillary testing by multiprobe FISH.
Vlajnic T; Gut A; Savic S; Bubendorf L
J Clin Pathol; 2020 Feb; 73(2):90-95. PubMed ID: 31467041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Utility and performance of cell blocks in urine cytology: Experience at three teaching hospitals.
Greenland NY; Khorsandi N; Peng Y; Balassanian R; Tabatabai ZL; Tiffany Shing TW; Vohra P
Cancer Cytopathol; 2023 Oct; 131(10):614-625. PubMed ID: 37291084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The predictive value of positive and suspicious urine cytology: Are they different?
Kuan KC; Segura SE; Ahlstedt J; Khader SN; Hakima L
Diagn Cytopathol; 2020 Nov; 48(11):998-1002. PubMed ID: 32558388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An institutional experience with The Paris System: A paradigm shift from ambiguous terminology to more objective criteria for reporting urine cytology.
Roy M; Kaushal S; Jain D; Seth A; Iyer VK; Mathur SR
Cytopathology; 2017 Dec; 28(6):509-515. PubMed ID: 28833848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. High-grade urothelial carcinoma in urine cytology: different spaces - different faces, highlighting morphologic variance.
McIntire PJ; Elsoukkary SS; Robinson BD; Siddiqui MT
J Am Soc Cytopathol; 2021; 10(1):36-40. PubMed ID: 32958411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Atypical Category of the Johns Hopkins Template Has Higher Risk of Malignancy than the Paris System but the Paris System Is More Applicable for Suspicious Category.
Celik B; Kavas G
Acta Cytol; 2023; 67(4):425-433. PubMed ID: 36731438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Split-sample comparison of urothelial cells in ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in urinary cytology: Do we need to adjust The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology criteria?
Richardson CJ; Pambuccian SE; Barkan GA
Cancer Cytopathol; 2020 Feb; 128(2):119-125. PubMed ID: 31774630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reclassification of urinary cytology regarding The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology with cytohistological correlation demonstrates high sensitivity for high-grade urothelial carcinoma.
Anbardar MH; Monjazeb R
Diagn Cytopathol; 2020 May; 48(5):446-452. PubMed ID: 31976626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
