Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings

Cancer

Volumn 99, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 205-210

  Siddiqui, Momin T ^a   Gokaslan, S Tunc ^a   Saboorian, M Hossein ^a   Carrick, Kelley ^a   Ashfaq, Raheela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Bile duct brushings; Conventional smear (CS); Ductal adenocarcinoma; ThinPrep (TP)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BILE DUCT CARCINOMA; BILIARY TRACT DISEASE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BILE DUCT NEOPLASMS; BILE DUCTS; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; HUMANS; MICROTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 0042973992     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11481     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ferrari AP, Lichtenstein DR, Slivka A. Brush cytology during ERCP for the diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:140-145.
2. Villanacci V, Padova E, Bonardi M, et al. Intestinal brushing. Technical-cytological contribution in the pathological study of Vater's ampulla, common bile duct, and pancreatic system. Pathologica. 1999;91:453-458.
3. Howell LP, Chow H-C, Russell LA. Cytodiagnosis of extrahepatic biliary duct tumors from specimens obtained during cholangiography. Diagn Cytopathol. 1988;4:328-334.
4. Farrell RJ, Jain AK, Brandwein SL, Wang H, Chuttani R, Pleskow DK. The combination of stricture dilation, endoscopic needle aspiration, and biliary brushings significantly improves diagnostic yield from malignant bile duct strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:587-594.
5. Kunz G Jr., Chung J, Ali SZ. Hepatocellular carcinoma-fibrolamellar variant: cytopathology of an unusual case. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:257-261.
6. Carriaga MT, Henson DE. Liver, gall bladder, extrahepatic bile ducts and pancreas. Cancer. 1995;75:171-190.
7. Ryan ME. Cytologic brushings of ductal abnormalities identified during ERCP [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc. 1989;35: 168.
8. Schoenthaler R, Phillips TL, Castro J, Efird JT, Better A, Way LW. Carcinoma of the extrahepatic bile ducts. The University of California at San Francisco experience. Ann Surg. 1994;219:267-274.
9. Van Heek NT, Rauws EA, Caspers E, Drillenburg P, Gouma DJ, Offerhaus GJ. Long-term follow-up of patients with a clinically benign extrahepatic biliary stenosis and K-ras mutation in endobiliary brush cytology. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:883-888.
10. Krishnamurthy S, Katz RL, Shumate A, et al. DNA image analysis combined with routine cytology improves diagnostic sensitivity of common bile duct brushings. Cancer. 2001; 93:229-235.
11. Linder J. Recent advances in thin-layer cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;18:24-32.
12. Operator's manual. ThinPrep processor. Marlborough, MA: Cytyc Corporation, 1992.
13. Zahniser DJ, Sullivan PJ. Cytyc Corporation. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:37-44.
14. Leung CS, Brian C, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: nongynecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:368-371.
15. Michael CW, Hunter B. Interpretation of fine needle aspirates processed by the ThinPrep technique: cytologic artifacts and diagnostic pitfalls. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:6-13.
16. Kish JK, Vallera DU, Ruby SG. Comparative study of nongynecologic processing by ThinPrep vs. conventional methodology: rationale for the use of ThinPrep [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1993:37:801.
17. Khafaji BM, Afify AM. Salivary gland fine needle aspiration using the ThinPrep technique: diagnostic accuracy, cytologic artifacts and pitfalls. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:567-574.
18. Dey P, Luthra UK, George J, Zuhairy F, George SS, Haji BI. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations on fine needle aspiration cytology material. Acta Cytol. 2000;44: 46-50.
19. Lee KR, Papillo JL, John TS, Eyerer GJA. Evaluation of the ThinPrep processor for fine needle aspiration specimens. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:895-899.
20. Bur M, Knowles K, Pekow P, Corral O, Donovan J. Comparison of ThinPrep preparations with conventional cervico-vaginal smears: practical considerations. Acta Cytol. 1995; 39:631-632.
21. Kocjan G, Smith AN. Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:358-363.
22. Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, Cotton PB. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:11-18.
23. Cohen MB, Wittchow RJ, Johlin FC, Bottles K, Raab SS. Brush cytology of the extrahepatic biliary tract: comparison of cytologic features of adenocarcinoma and benign biliary strictures. Mod Pathol. 1995;8:498-502.
24. Rabinovitz M, Zajko AB, Hassanein T, Shetty B, Bron KM, Schade RR. Diagnostic value of brush cytology in the diagnosis of bile duct carcinoma. Hepatology. 1990;12:747-752.
25. Logrono R, Kurtycz DF, Molina CP, Trivedi VA, Wong JY, Block KP. Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures. The experience at 2 University Hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:387-392.