|
|
1. |
Xin W, Raab SS, Michael CW. Low-grade urothelial carcinoma: reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29:125–129.
|
|
2. |
Saad A, Hanbury DC, McNicholas TA, Boustead GB, Woodman AC. The early detection and diagnosis of bladder cancer: a critical review of the options. Eur Urol 2001;39:619–633.
|
|
3. |
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.
|
|
4. |
Planz B, Jochims E, Deix T, Caspers HP, Jakse G, Boecking A. The role of urinary cytology for detection of bladder cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:304–308.
|
|
5. |
Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999;87:118–128.
|
|
6. |
Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and metaanalyses. Urology 2003;61:109–118.
|
|
7. |
Anagnostopoulou I SH, Rammou-Kinnia R, Karakitsos P, Gianni I, Georgoulakis J, Kittas C. Comparative study of Thinprep and conventional voided urine cytology (Abstract). Cytopathology 2000;11:373.
|
|
8. |
Nicol TL, Kelly D, Reynolds L, Rosenthal DL. Comparison of TriPath thin-layer technology with conventional methods on nongynecologic specimens. Acta Cytol 2000;44:567–575.
|
|
9. |
Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield. ThinPrep vs. cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33–36.
|
|
10. |
Pondo A CB, Gupta PK. Use of Thinprep in urine cytology (Abstract). Acta Cytol 1992;37:584.
|
|
11. |
Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;12:306–313.
|
|
12. |
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.
|
|
13. |
Bishop JW, Sims KL. Cellular morphometry in nongynecologic thin-layer and filter cytologic specimens. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1998;20:257–267.
|
|
14. |
van der Poel HG, Boon ME, van Stratum P, et al. Conventional bladder wash cytology performed by four experts versus quantitative image analysis. Mod Pathol 1997;10:976–982.
|
|
15. |
Luthra UK, Dey P, George J, et al. : Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:364–366.
|
|
16. |
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.
|
|
17. |
Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Wu HH. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. Cancer 2006;108:144–149.
|
|
18. |
Skacel M, Fahmy M, Brainard JA, et al. : Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay detects transitional cell carcinoma in the majority of patients with bladder cancer and atypical or negative urine cytology. J Urol 2003;169:2101–2105.
|
|
19. |
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;99:223–232.
|
|