Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology

Cytopathology

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 306-313

  Wright, R G ^a   Halford, J A ^a  

^a QML Pathology   (Australia)

Author keywords

AutoCyte PREP ; Cytology; Thin layer techniques; ThinPrep ; Urinary tract specimens

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; TIME; URINALYSIS; URINARY TRACT;

CARCINOMA, TRANSITIONAL CELL; COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES; CYTODIAGNOSIS; HUMANS; LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; URINARY TRACT; URINE; UROLOGIC DISEASES; UROLOGIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 0035788811     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00341.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Barrett DL, King EB. Comparison of cellular recovery rates and morphological detail obtained using membrane filter and cytocentrifuge techniques. Acta Cytol 1976; 20: 174-80.
2. Marwah S, Devlin D, Dekker A. A comparative cytologic study of 100 urine specimens processed by the slide centrifuge and membrane filter techniques. Acta Cytol 1978; 22: 431-4.
3. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S et al. ThinPrep processor. Clinical trial demonstrates an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytology specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101: 209-14.
4. Howell LP, Davis RL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The AutoCyte preparation system for gynaecological cytology. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 171-7.
5. Biscotti CV, Shorie JH, Gramlich TL, Easley KA. ThinPrep vs conventional smear cytologic preparations in analyzing fine-needle aspiration specimens from palpable breast masses. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 21: 137-41.
6. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: non-gynaecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 16: 368-71.
7. Luthra UK, Dey P, George J, Abdulla MA, Shaheen AA, Sheikh ZA, George SS. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol (Letter) 1999; 21: 364-6.
8. Nicol TL, Kelly D, Reynolds L, Rosenthal DL. Comparison of TriPath thinlayer technology with conventional methods of nongynaecologic specimens. Acta Cytol 2000; 44: 567-75.
9. ThinPrep® 2000 Operators Manual, Chap. 8: 1.7. Boxborough, MA: Cytyc Corp.
10. AutoCyte PREP™ Procedures and Protocols, Non-Cervicovaginal Applications. Burlington, NC: AutoCyte Inc., 1999; 1-11.
11. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 3rd edn. London: Blackwell Scientific, 1994; 125.
12. Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield: ThinPrep vs. Cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994; 38: 33-36.
13. Beech DP, Allbee A, Atanasoff PE, Moore TL, Bell DA. A comparison of voided urine samples processed by the Cytyc ThinPrep Processor and the Shandon Cyto-Spin II (poster abstract). Acta Cytol 1992; 36: 583.
14. Luthra UK, Dey P, George J et al. Comparison of ThinPrep® and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1999; 21: 364-5.
15. Burton JL, Goepel JR, Lee JA. Demand management in urine cytology: a single cytospin slide is sufficient. J Clin Pathol 2000; 53: 718-916.