High-grade urothelial carcinoma: Comparison of SurePath liquid-based processing with cytospin processing

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 16-20

  Lu, David Y ^a   Nassar, Aziza ^b   Siddiqui, Momin T ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Cytospin; SurePath; Urine cytology; Urothelial carcinoma

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CELL; CELL SIZE; CELL STRUCTURE; CYTOSPIN CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; URINE CYTOLOGY; UROGENITAL TRACT CANCER; UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA;

CARCINOMA; CENTRIFUGATION; HISTOCYTOLOGICAL PREPARATION TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS;

EID: 58149523356     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20957     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, et al. World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2005.
2. Hall MC, Chang SS, Dalbagni G, et al. Guideline for the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (stages Ta, T1, and Tis): 2007 update. J Urol 2007;178:2314-2330.
3. Koss LG, Melamed MR. Koss' diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
4. Piaton E, Faynel J, Hutin K, Ranchin MC, Cottier M. Conventional liquid-based techniques versus Cytyc ThinPrep processing of urinary samples: A qualitative approach. BMC Clin Pathol 2005;5:9.
5. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Wu HH. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. Cancer 2006;108:144-149.
6. Luthra UK, Dey P, George J, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: Urine cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:364-366.
7. Piaton E, Hutin K, Faynel J, Ranchin MC, Cottier M. Cost efficiency analysis of modern cytocentrifugation methods versus liquid based (Cytyc ThinPrep) processing of urinary samples. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:1208-1212.
8. Nassar H, Ali-Fehmi R, Madan S. Use of ThinPrep monolayer technique and cytospin preparation in urine cytology: A comparative analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:115-118.
9. Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;12:306-313.
10. Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield. ThinPrep vs. cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33-36.
11. Nicol TL, Kelly D, Reynolds L, Rosenthal DL. Comparison of Tri- Path thin-layer technology with conventional methods on nongynecologic specimens. Acta Cytol 2000;44:567-575.
12. Zardawi IM, Duncan J. Evaluation of a centrifuge method and thin- layer preparation in urine cytology. Acta Cytol 2003;47:1038-1042.
13. Bhatia A, Dey P, Kakkar N, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R. Malignant atypical cell in urine cytology: A diagnostic dilemma. Cytojournal 2006;3:28.