Use of the ThinPrep® method in bile duct brushings: Analysis of morphologic parameters associated with malignancy and determination of interobserver reliability

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 36, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 651-656

  Waugh, Michael S ^a   Guy, Cynthia D ^a   Maygarden, Susan J ^b   Livasy, Chad A ^b   Jones, Claudia K ^a   Volmar, Keith E ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cytomorphology; Extrahepatic biliary tract; Interobserver reliability; Malignancy; Pancreatic duct; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BILE DUCT CANCER; BLOOD; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORPHOLOGY; CELL NUCLEUS MEMBRANE; CELL STRUCTURE; CHROMATIN; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INFLAMMATION; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MITOSIS; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THINPREP BILE DUCT CYTOLOGY; BILE DUCT; BILE DUCT DISEASE; HISTOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BILE DUCT DISEASES; BILE DUCTS; FEMALE; HISTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH CAROLINA; OBSERVER VARIATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 50849121692     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20855     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Bourgeois N, Dunham F, Verhest A, Cremer M. Endoscopic biopsies of the papilla of Vater at the time of endoscopic sphincterotomy: difficulties in interpretation. Gastrointest Endosc 1984;30:163-166.
2. Layfield LJ, Cramer H. Primary sclerosing cholangitis as a cause of false positive bile duct brushing cytology: report of two cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:119-124.
3. Renshaw AA, Madge R, Jiroutek M, Granter SR. Bile duct brushing cytology: statistical analysis of proposed diagnostic criteria. Am J Clin Pathol 1998; 110:635-640.
4. Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Routbort MJ, Creager AJ. Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases: Review of findings and comparison of preparation methods. Cancer 2006;108:231-238.
5. Mitchell ML, Carney CN. Cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 1985;83:171-176.
6. Nakajima T, Tajima Y, Sugano I, et al. Multivariate statistical analysis of bile cytology. Acta Cytol 1994;38:51-55.
7. 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.
8. Okonkwo AM, De Frias DV, Gunn R, et al. Reclassification of "atypical" diagnoses in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography-guided biliary brushings. Acta Cytol 2003;47:435-442.
9. Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, Cotton PB. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol 1995:39:11-18.
10. Willmore-Payne C, Volmar KE, Huening MA, Holden JA, Layfield LJ. Molecular diagnostic testing as an adjunct to morphologic evaluation of pancreatic ductal system brushings: Potential augmentation for diagnostic sensitivity. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:218-224.
11. Jhala N, Jhala D, Vickers SM, et al. Biomarkers in diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma in fine-needle aspirates. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;126:572-579.
12. Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Hailing SA, et al. A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures. [see comment]. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1675-1681.
13. Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA, et al. A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 2000;164:1768-1775.