Morphometric image analysis of pancreatic disease by ThinPrep liquid-based cytology

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 40, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 970-975

  Taira, Tomoki ^a   Kawahara, Akihiko ^a   Yamaguchi, Tomohiko ^a   Abe, Hideyuki ^a   Ishida, Yusuke ^b   Okabe, Yoshinobu ^b   Naito, Yoshiki ^b   Yano, Hirohisa ^b   Kage, Masayoshi ^a  

^a KURUME UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^b KURUME UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

liquid based cytology; morphometric image analysis; nucleus size; pancreatic disease; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CELL; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTRADUCTAL PAPILLARY MUCINOUS TUMOR; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MALE; PANCREAS CANCER; PANCREAS DISEASE; PANCREATITIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

AGED; CELL NUCLEUS; CELL NUCLEUS SIZE; CHROMATIN; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PANCREAS; PANCREATIC DISEASES; PAPILLOMA, INTRADUCTAL;

EID: 84867887955     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.21704     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71-96.
2. Robins DB, Katz RL, Evans DB, Atkinson EN, Green L,. Fine needle aspiration of the pancreas. In quest of accuracy. Acta Cytol 1995; 39: 1-10.
3. Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Kimura K, Ito K,. Endoscopic approach to early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 2004; 28: 279-281.
4. Uehara H, Nakaizumi A, Tatsuta M, et al. Diagnosis of carcinoma in situ of the pancreas by peroral pancreatoscopy and pancreatoscopic cytology. Cancer 1997; 79: 454-461.
5. Naito Y, Okabe Y, Kawahara A, et al. Usefulness of lavage cytology during endoscopic transpapillary catheterization into the gallbladder in the cytological diagnosis of gallbladder disease. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 402-406.
6. 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.
7. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V,. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: Nongynecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 16: 368-371.
8. Saleh H, Bassily N, Hammoud MJ,. Utility of a liquid-based, monolayer preparation in the evaluation of thyroid lesions by fine needle aspiration biopsy: Comparison with the conventional smear method. Acta Cytol 2009; 53: 130-136.
9. Laucirica R, Bentz JS, Souers RJ, 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: 19-22.
10. Sheehan MM, Fraser A, Ravindran R, McAteer D,. Bile duct brushings cytology-improving sensitivity of diagnosis using the ThinPrep technique: A review of 113 cases. Cytopathology 2007; 18: 225-233.
11. Boost T,. A comparison of screening times between the ThinPrep Imager and conventional cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 661-664.
12. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, Ashfaq R,. Split sample comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspirations. Diagn Cytopathol 2005; 32: 70-75.
13. Cox JT,. Liquid-based cytology: Evaluation of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and application to present practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2004; 2: 597-611.
14. Wright PK, Marshall J, Desai M,. Comparison of SurePath and ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators. Cytopathology 2010; 21: 374-378.
15. de Luna R, Eloubeidi MA, Sheffield MV, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 30: 71-76.
16. LeBlanc JK, Emerson RE, Dewitt J, et al. A prospective study comparing rapid assessment of smears and ThinPrep for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 389-394.
17. Kawahara A, Harada H, Akiba J, Kage M,. Salivary duct carcinoma cytologically diagnosed distinctly from salivary gland carcinomas with squamous differentiation. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36: 485-493.
18. 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: 196-204.
19. Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, Cotton PB,. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol 1995; 39: 11-18.
20. Nakaizumi A, Tatsuta M, Uehara H, et al. Effectiveness of the cytologic examination of pure pancreatic juice in the diagnosis of early neoplasia of the pancreas. Cancer 1995; 76: 750-757.
21. Pitman MB, Deshpande V,. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas: A morphological and multimodal approach to the diagnosis of solid and cystic mass lesions. Cytopathology 2007; 18: 331-347.
22. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, Carrick K, Ashfaq R,. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. Cancer 2003; 99: 205-210.
23. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, Ashfaq R,. Split sample comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspirations. Diagn Cytopathol 2005; 32: 70-75.
24. Salek C, Benesova L, Zavoral M, et al. Evaluation of clinical relevance of examining K-ras, p16 and p53 mutations along with allelic losses at 9p and 18q in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration samples of patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 3714-3720.