Special Techniques in Cytology
14. Shi SR, Cote RJ, Taylor CR. Antigen
retrieval immunohistochemistry: past,
present, and future.
J H istochem C ytochem
15. Shi SR, Key ME, Kalra KL. Antigen
retrieval in formalin-fixed, paraffin-
embedded tissues: an enhancement
method for immunohistochemical stain-
ing based on microwave oven heating
of tissue sections.
J H istochem C ytochem
16. Boon ME, Kok LP. Breakthrough in
pathology due to antigen retrieval.
M a l J
M e d Lab Sci
17. Sherman ME, Jiménez-Joseph D, Gangi
MD, et al. Immunostaining o f small
cytologic specimens. Facilitation w ith cell
A cta C ytol
18. M iller RT, Swanson PE, W ick MR. Fixa-
tion and epitope retrieval in diagnostic
immunohistochemistry: a concise review
w ith practical considerations [review].
A p p l Im m un o h isto c h e m M o l M o rp h o l
19. Fitzgibbons PL, Murphy DA, Dorfman
DM, et al. Immunohistochemistry Com-
mittee, College of American Pathologists.
Interlaboratory comparison o f im m uno-
histochemical testing for HER2: results of
the 2004 and 2005 College o f American
Pathologists HER2 Immunohistochemis-
try Tissue Microarray Survey.
A rc h P a th o l
Lab M e d
20. McKee GT, Tambouret RH, Finkelstein D.
A reliable method o f demonstrating HER
2/neu, estrogen receptors, and proges-
terone receptors on routinely processed
cytologic material.
A p p l Im m unohistochem
M o l M o rp h o l
21. Gong Y, Symmans WF, Krishnamurthy
S, et al. Optimal fixation conditions for
immunocytochemical analysis
of estrogen receptor in cytologic
specimens o f breast carcinoma.
C ancer
22. Goldstein NS, Ferkowicz M, Odish
E, et al. M inim um form alin fixation
time for consistent estrogen receptor
immunohistochemical staining o f inva-
sive breast carcinoma.
A m J C lin P a th o l
23. Tabbara SO, Sidaway M, Frost AR, et al.
The stability o f estrogen and progesterone
receptor expression on breast carcinoma
cells stored as PreservCyt suspensions
and as ThinPrep slides.
C ancer C ytop athol
24. Dabbs DJ, Abendroth CS, Grenko RT,
et al. Immunocytochemistry on the
ThinPrep processor.
D ia g n C ytop athol
25. Guiter GE, Gatscha RM, Zakowski MF.
ThinPrep vs conventional aspirations of
sarcomas: a morphological and im m uno-
cytochemical study.
D ia g n C ytop athol
26. Leung SW, Bedard YC. Immunocyto-
chemical staining on ThinPrep processed
M o d P a th o l
27. Kaplan MA, Segura AM, Wang HH, et al.
Evaluation o f Cytolyt and PreservCyt as
preservatives for immunocytochemistry
for cytokeratin in fine needle aspiration.
A p p l Im m un o h isto c h e m
28. Soule N, Mui K, O'Brien M, et al. A rapid
automated system for creating paraffin-
embedded cell blocks. Abstract 193.
C ancer C ytop athol
29. Dabbs DJ, Wang X. Immunocytochemistry
on cytologic specimens of limited quan-
D ia g n C ytopathol
30. Hunt JL, van de Rijn M, Gupta PK.
Immunohistochemical analysis of gel-
transferred cells in cytologic preparations
following smear division.
D ia g n
C ytop athol
31. Edwards C, Oates J. OV 632 and MOC-
31 in the diagnosis of mesothelioma
and adenocarcinoma: an assessment of
their use in formalin-fixed and paraffin
wax embedded material.
J C lin P a th o l
32. To A, Dearnaley DP, Omerod MG, et al.
Epithelial membrane antigen: its use in
the cytodiagnosis of malignancy.
A m J
C lin P a th o l
33. Sack MJ, Roberts SA. Cytokeratins 20 and
7 in the differential diagnosis of meta-
static carcinomas in cytologic specimens.
C ytopathology
34. Manosca F, Schinstine M, Fetsch PA,
et al. Diagnostic effects of prolonged
storage on fresh effusion samples.
D ia g n
C ytop athol
35. Doglioni C, Dei Tos AP, Laurino L, et al.
A novel immunocytochemical marker
for mesothelioma.
A m J S urg P a th o l
36. Politi E, Kandaraki C, Apostolopoulou
C, et al. Immunocytochemical panel for
distinguishing between carcinoma and
reactive mesothelial cells in body cavity
D ia g n C ytop athol
37. Fetsch PA, Simsir A, Abati A. Comparison
of antibodies to HBME-1 and calretinin
for the detection of mesothelial cells
in effusion cytology.
D ia g n C ytop athol
38. Ordonez NG. Value of calretinin immuno-
staining in differentiating epithelial mes-
othelioma from lung adenocarcinoma.
M o d P a th o l
39. Nagel H, Hemmerlein B, Ruschenberg I,
et al. The value of anti-calretinin anti-
body in the differential diagnosis of
normal and reactive mesothelia versus
metastatic tumors in effusion cytology.
P a th o l Res P ra c t
40. Yaziji H, Battifora H, Barry TS, et al.
Evaluation of 12 antibodies for dis-
tinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma
from adenocarcinoma: identification of
a three-antibody immunohistochemi-
cal panel with maximal sensitivity and
M o d P a th o l
41. Moll R, Dhouailly D, Sun T-T. Expression
of keratin 5 as a distinctive feature of
epithelial and biphasic mesotheliomas.
An immunohistochemical study using
monoclonal antibody.
V irchow s A rc h B
C ell P a th o l
42. Blobel GA, Moll R, Franke RR, et al. The
intermediate cytoskeleton of malignant
mesotheliomas and its diagnostic signifi-
A m J P a th o l
43. Clover J, Oates J, Edwards C. Anti-
cytokeratin 5/6: a positive marker
for mesothelioma.
H istop atholog y
44. Ordonez NG. Value o f cytokeratin 5/6
immunostaining in distinguishing epi-
thelial mesothelioma o f the pleura from
lung adenocarcinoma.
A m J S urg P a th o l
45. Saad RS, Lindner JL, Lin X, et al. The
diagnostic u tility o f D2-40 for malignant
mesothelioma versus pulmonary carci-
noma w ith pleural involvement.
D ia g n
C ytop athol
46. Bassarova AV, Nesland JM, Davidson B.
D2-40 is not a specific marker for cells
o f mesothelial origin in serous effusions.
A m J S urg P a th o l
47. Granja NM, Begnami MD, Bortolan J,
et al. Desmoplastic small round cell
tumour: cytological and immunocyto-
chemical features.
C yto jo u rn a l
48. Afify A, Zhou H, Howell L, et al. Diag-
nostic u tility o f GLUT-1 expression in the
cytologic evaluation of serous fluids.
A cta
C ytol
49. Kato Y, Tsuta K, Seki K, et al. Im m uno-
histochemical detection of GLUT-1 can
discriminate between reactive mesothe-
liu m and malignant mesothelioma.
M o d
P a th o l
50. Morgan RL, De Young BR, McGaughy VR,
et al. MOC-31 aids in the differentiation
between adenocarcinoma and
reactive mesothelial cells.
C ancer
51. Ordonez NG. Value o f the MOC-31
monoclonal antibody in differentiat-
ing epithelial pleural mesothelioma
from lung adenocarcinoma.
H u m P a th o l
52. Gonzalez-Lois C, Ballestin C, Sotelo MT,
et al. Combined use of novel epithelial
(MOC-31) and mesothelial (HBME-1)
immunohistochemical markers for
optimal first line diagnostic distinction
between mesothelioma and metastatic
carcinoma in pleura.
H istop atholog y
53. Bailey ME, Brown RW, Mody DR, et al.
Ber-EP4 for differentiating adenocar-
cinoma from reactive and neoplastic
mesothelial cells in serous effusions.
Comparison w ith carcinoembryonic
antigen, B72.3 and Leu-M1.
A cta C ytol
54. Delahaye M, van der Ham F, van der
Kwast T H . Complementary value o f five
carcinoma markers for the diagnosis of
malignant mesothelioma, adenocarci-
noma metastasis, and reactive mesothe-
liu m in serous effusions.
D ia g n C ytop athol
55. Gaffey MJ, M ills SE, Swanson PE, et al.
Immunoreactivity for Ber-EP4 in adeno-
carcinomas, adenomatoid tumors and
malignant mesotheliomas.
A m J Surg
P a th o l
56. Bollinger DJ, W ick MR, Dehner LP,
et al. Peritoneal malignant mesothelioma
versus serous papillary adenocarcinoma:
a histochemical and im m unohisto-
chemical comparison.
A m J S urg P a th o l
57. Latza U, Niedobitek G, Schwarting R,
et al. Ber-EP4: new monoclonal antibody
which distinguishes epithelia from
J C lin P a th o l
previous page 1052 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online next page 1054 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online Home Toggle text on/off