PART ONE
General Cytology
26. Lozano MD, Panizio A, Toledo GR, et al.
Immunocytochemistry in the differential
diagnosis of serous effusions. A compara-
tive evaluation of eight monoclonal anti-
bodies in Papanicolaoy stained smears.
Cancer
2001;93:68-72.
27. Fadda G, Rossi ED, Mule A, et al. Diag-
nostic efficacy of immunocytochemistry
on fine needle aspiration biopsies
processed by thin-layer cytology.
Acta Cytol
2006;50:129-135.
28. Baloch ZW, Cobb C, Roberts S, et al.
Millipore filter cell block preparation.
An alternative to cell block in non-
gynecologic specimens of limited cellular-
ity.
Diagn Cytopathol
1999;20:389-392.
29. Chandan vS, Faquin WC, Wilbur DC,
et al. The utility of GLUT-1 immunolocal-
ization in cell blocks. An adjunct to the
fine needle aspiration diagnosis of cystiv
squamous lesions of the head and neck.
Cancer
2006;108:124-128.
30. Chhieng DC, Benson E, Eltoum I, et al.
MUC1 and MUC2 expression in pancreatic
ductal carcinoma obtained by fine needle
aspiration.
Cancer
2003;99:365-371.
31. Morgan RL, DeYoung BR, McGaughy VR,
et al. MOC-31 aids in the differentiation
between adenocarcinoma and reactive
mesothelial cells.
Cancer
1999;87:
390-394.
32. Fetsch PA, Abati A, Hijazi YM. Utility
of the antibodies CA19-9, HMBE-1 and
thrombomodulin in the diagnosis of
malignant mesothelioma and adenocarci-
noma in cytology.
Cancer
1998;84:101-108.
33. Levine PH, Joutovsky A, Cangiarella J, et al.
CDX-2 expression in pulmonary fine
needle aspiration specimens. A useful
adjunct for the diagnosis of metastatic
colorectal adenocarcinoma.
Diagn
Cytopatol
2006;34:191-195.
34. Saad RS, Essig DL, Silverman JF, et al.
Diagnostic utility of CDX-2 expression
in separating metastatic gastrointestinal
adenocarcinoma in fine needle aspira-
tion cytology using cell blocks.
Cancer
2004;102:168-173.
35. Bedrossian CW, Davilia RM, Merenda G.
Immunocytochemical evaluation of liver
fine needle aspirations.
Arch Pathol Lab
Med
1998;113:1225-1230.
36. Yoder M, Zimmerman RL, Bibbo M.
Two-color immunostaining of liver
fine needle aspiration biopsies with
CD34 and carcinoembryonic antigen.
Potential utilization in the diagnosis of
primary hepatocellular carcinoma versus
metastatic tumor.
Anal Quant Cytol Histol
2004;26:61-64.
37. Lin F, Abdallah H, Meschter S. Diagnostic
utility of CD10 in differentiating hepato-
cellular carcinoma from metastatic carci-
noma in fine needle aspiration biopsy of
the liver.
Diagn Cytopathol
2004;30:92-97.
38. Shin SJ, Hoda RS, Ying L, et al. Diagnos-
tic utility of the monoclonal antibody
A103 in fine needle aspiration biop-
sies of the adrenal.
Am J Clin Pathol
2000;113:295-302.
39. Papillo JL, Lapin D. Cell yield verses
cytocentrifuge.
Acta Cytol
1994;38:33-36.
40. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of
ThinPrep and conventional preparations.
Nongynecologic cytology evaluation.
Diagn Cytopathol
1997;16:368-371.
41. Dey P, Luthra UK, George J, et al.
Camparison of ThinPrep and con-
ventional preparations on fine needle
aspiration cytology material.
Acta Cytol
2000;44:46-50.
42. Michael CW, Hunter B. Interpretation
of fine-needle aspirates processed by the
ThinPrep technique. Cytologic artifacts
and diagnostic pitfalls.
Diagn Cytopathol
2000;23:6-13.
43. Micheal CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, et al.
Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath
PREP liquid-based preparations in
nongynecologic specimens. A pilot study.
Diagn Cytopathol
2001;25:177-184.
44. Biscotti CV, Hollow JA, Toddy SM, et al.
ThinPrep versus conventional smear
cytologic preparations in the analysis of
thyroid fine needle aspiration specimens.
Am J Clin Pathol
1995;104:150-153.
45. Afify AM, Liu J, Al-Khafaji BM. Cytologic
artifacts and pitfalls of fine needle aspira-
tions using ThinPrep. A comparative
retrospective review.
Cancer
2001;93:
179-186.
46. Malle D, Valeri RM, Pazaitou-Panajiotou K,
et al. Our experience from the use of
ThinPrep technique in thyroid fine needle
aspiration.
Acta Cytol
2006;50:23-27.
47. Perez-Reyes N, Mulford DK, Ruthowski
MA, et al. Breast fine needle aspiration.
A comparison of thin-layer and con-
ventional preparation.
Am J Clin Pathol
1994;102:108-110.
48. Biscotti CV, Shorie JH, Gramlich TL, et al.
ThinPrep versus conventional smear
cytologic preparations in analyzing
fine needle aspiration specimens from
palpable breast masses.
Diagn Cytopathol
1999;21:137-141.
49. Bedard YC, Pollett AF. Breast fine needle
aspiration. A comparison of ThinPrep
and conventional smears.
Am J Clin
Pathol
1999;113:312-314.
50. Al-Khafaji BM, Afify AM. Salivary gland
fine needle aspiration using the Thin-
Prep technique. Diagnostic accuracy,
cytologic artifacts and pitfalls.
Acta Cytol
2001;45:567-574.
51. de Luna R, Eloubeidi MA, Sheffield MV,
et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and con-
ventional preparations in pancreatic fine
needle aspiration biospy.
Diagn Cytopathol
2004;30:71-76.
52. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian
MH, et al. Split sample comparison of
ThinPrep and conventional smears in
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan-
creatography-guided pancreatic fine
needle aspirations.
Diagn Cytopathol
2005;32:70-75.
53. Das K, Hameed M, Heller D, et al. Liquid-
based versus conventional smears in fine
needle aspiration of bone and soft tissue
tumors.
Acta Cytol
2003;47:197-201.
54. Ylagan LR, Zhai J. The value of ThinPrep
and cytospin preparation in pleural effu-
sion cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma
and adenocarcinoma.
Diagn Cytopathol
2005;32:137-144.
55. 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.
56. Piaton E, Huntin K, Faynel J, et al. Cost
efficiency analysis of modern cytocen-
trifugation methods versus liquid based
(Cytcy ThinPrep) processing of urinary
sample.
J Clin Pathol
2004;57:1208-1212.
57. Piaton E, Faynel J. Huntin K, et al. Con-
ventional liquid-based techniques versus
Cytyc ThinPrep processing of urinary
samples. A qualitative approach.
BMC
Clin Pathol
2005;5:9-14.
58. Nasuti JF, Fleisher SR, Gupta PK. Signifi-
cance of tissue fragments in voided urine
specimens.
Acta Cytol
2001;45:147-152.
59. Goldstein ML, Whitman T, Renshaw
AA. Significance of cell groups in voided
urine.
Acta Cytol
1998;42:290-294.
60. Holmquist DH, Keebler CM. Cytoprepar-
atorytechniques. In: Keebler CM, Somrak
TM (eds)
The Manual of Cytotechnology,
7th edn. Chicago: American Society of
Clinical Pathologists Press,1993:411-448.
61. Bales EB, Durfee GR. Principles of opera-
tion of a cytopathology laboratory. In:
Koss LG (ed)
Diagnostic Cytology and
Its Histopathologic Bases,
vol 2, 4th edn.
Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1992:
1451-1531.
74
previous page 78 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online next page 80 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online Home Toggle text on/off