Comparison of ThinPrep preparations to other preparation types in gastrointestinal cytology observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic cytology

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 134, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1116-1120

  Clayton, Amy C ^a   Bentz, Joel S ^b   Wasserman, Patricia G ^c   Schwartz, Mary R ^d   Souers, Rhona J ^e   Chmara, Beth Anne ^f   Laucirica, Rodolfo ^g   Clary, Karen M ^h   Moriarty, Ann T ⁱ  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e Biostatistics Department   (United States)

^f Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^g BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h ROCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ Ameripath Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOLOGY; GASTROINTESTINAL TUMOR; HOSPITAL LABORATORY; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ADENOCARCINOMA; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; GASTROINTESTINAL NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; LABORATORIES, HOSPITAL; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77955409177     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Stewart CJ, Mills PR, Carter R, et al. Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(6):449-455.
2. Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Routbort MJ, et al. Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases: review of findings and comparison of preparation methods. Cancer. 2006;108(4):231-238.
3. Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Halling SA, et al. A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(9):1675-1681.
4. Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield: ThinPrep vs cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol. 1994;38(1):33-36.
5. 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;5:9-16.
6. Piaton E, Hutin K, Faynel J, et al. Cost efficiency analysis of modern cytocentrifugation methods versus liquid based (Cytyc Thinprep) processing of urinary samples. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57(11):1208-1212.
7. Tisserand P, Fouquet C, Marck V, et al. ThinPrep-processed fine-needle samples of breast are effective material for RNA-and DNA-based molecular diagnosis: application to p53 mutation analysis. Cancer. 2003;99(4):223-232.
8. Duggan MA, Brasher P, Medlicott SA. ERCP-directed brush cytology prepared by the Thinprep method: test performance and morphology of 149 cases. Cytopathology. 2004;15(2):80-86.
9. Minamiguchi S, McEvoy R, Fraig M, et al. Bile duct brushings on ThinPrep: experience with 68 specimens. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30(4):292-293.
10. Sheehan MM, Fraser A, Ravindran R, et al. Bile duct brushings cytology-improving sensitivity of diagnosis using the ThinPrep technique: a review of 113 cases. Cytopathology. 2007;18(4):225-233.
11. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. Cancer. 2003;99(4):205-210.
12. Wang HH, Sovie S, Trawinski G, et al. ThinPrep processing of endoscopic brushing specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;105(2):163-167.
13. Ylagan LR, Liu LH, Maluf HM. Endoscopic bile duct brushing of malignant pancreatic biliary strictures: retrospective study with comparison of conventional smear and ThinPrep techniques. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28(4):196-204.
14. Bishop JW, MacFarlane K, Cheubront D, et al. Cell recovery and appearance in thin-layer preparations in nongynecologic cytology. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1998;20(4):229-237.
15. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Wu HH. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2006;108(3):144-149.
16. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: nongynecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16(4):368-371.
17. Moriarty AM, Schwartz MR, Ducatman BS, et al. A liquid concept-do classic preparations of body cavity fluid perform differently than ThinPrep cases? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(11):1716-1718.
18. Laucirica R, Bentz JS, Souers RS, et al. Do liquid-based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases: observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(1):19-22.
19. Ylagan LR, Liu LH, Maluf HM. Endoscopic bile duct brushing of malignant pancreatic biliary strictures: retrospective study with comparison of conventional smear and ThinPrep techniques. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30(4):196-204.
20. Hoda RS. Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35(10):621-634.