View Item 

Show simple item record

Clinical evaluation, imaging studies, indications for cytologic study, and preprocedural requirements for duct brushing studies and pancreatic FNA: The papanicolaou society of cytopathology recommendations for pancreatic and biliary cytology
dc.contributor.authorAdler, Douglasen_US
dc.contributor.authorMax Schmidt, C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAl‐haddad, Mohammaden_US
dc.contributor.authorBarthel, James S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLjung, Britt‐marieen_US
dc.contributor.authorMerchant, Nipun B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRomagnuolo, Josephen_US
dc.contributor.authorShaaban, Akram M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSimeone, Dianeen_US
dc.contributor.authorBishop Pitman, Marthaen_US
dc.contributor.authorField, Andrewen_US
dc.contributor.authorLayfield, Lester J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-21T18:03:05Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-05-21T18:03:05Z
dc.date.issued2014-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationAdler, Douglas; Max Schmidt, C.; Al‐haddad, Mohammad ; Barthel, James S.; Ljung, Britt‐marie ; Merchant, Nipun B.; Romagnuolo, Joseph; Shaaban, Akram M.; Simeone, Diane; Bishop Pitman, Martha; Field, Andrew; Layfield, Lester J. (2014). "Clinical evaluation, imaging studies, indications for cytologic study, and preprocedural requirements for duct brushing studies and pancreatic FNA: The papanicolaou society of cytopathology recommendations for pancreatic and biliary cytology." Diagnostic Cytopathology 42(4): 325-332.en_US
dc.identifier.issn8755-1039en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/106723
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherSpringer‐Verlagen_US
dc.subject.otherCytologyen_US
dc.subject.otherFine‐Needle Aspirationen_US
dc.subject.otherPancreasen_US
dc.subject.otherIndicationsen_US
dc.subject.otherGuidelinesen_US
dc.subject.otherPSCen_US
dc.subject.otherBile Ducten_US
dc.titleClinical evaluation, imaging studies, indications for cytologic study, and preprocedural requirements for duct brushing studies and pancreatic FNA: The papanicolaou society of cytopathology recommendations for pancreatic and biliary cytologyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPathologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106723/1/dc23095.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/dc.23095en_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiagnostic Cytopathologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnand N, Samputh K, Wu BU. Cyst features and risk of malignancy in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: A meta‐analysis. Clin Gastroententerol Hepatol 2013; 11: 913 – 921.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTanaka M, Fernández‐del Castillo C, Adsay V, et al. International Association of Pancreatology. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology 2012; 12: 183 – 197.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePalazzo L, Roseau G, Gayet B, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Results of a prospective study with comparison to ultrasonography and CT scan. Endoscopy 1993; 25: 143 – 150.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoward TJ, Chin AC, Streib EW, Kopecky KK, Wiebke EA. Value of helical computed tomography, angiography, and endoscopic ultrasound in determining resectability of periampullary carcinoma. Am J Surg 1997; 174: 237 – 241.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLegmann P, Vignaux O, Dousset B, et al. Pancreatic tumors: comparison of dual‐phase helical CT and endoscopic sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 1315 – 1322.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMertz HR, Sechopoulos P, Delbeke D, Leach SD. EUS, PET, and CT scanning for evaluation of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 367 – 371.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLegmann P, Vignaux O, Dousset B, et al. Pancreatic tumors: comparison of dual‐phase helical CT and endoscopic sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 1315 – 1322.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMidwinter MJ, Beveridge CJ, Wilsdon JB, Bennett MK, Baudouin CJ, Charnley RM. Correlation between spiral computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography and findings at operation in pancreatic and ampullary tumours. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 189 – 193.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEarly DS, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V, et al. ASGE guideline: Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 839 – 843.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAl‐Haddad M, Schmidt MC, Sandrasegaran K, Dewitt J. Diagnosis and treatment of cystic pancreatic tumors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 635 – 648.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Jhala NC, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of suspected cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 209 – 213.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHorwhat JD, Paulson EK, McGrath K, et al. A randomized comparison of EUS‐guided FNA versus CT or US‐guided FNA for the evaluation of pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 966 – 975.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMicames C, Jowell PS, White R, et al. Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS‐guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 690 – 695.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBhutani MS, Gress FG, Giovannini M, et al. The No Endosonographic Detection of Tumor (NEST) Study: A case series of pancreatic cancers missed on endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 385 – 389.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, editors. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43; AHRQ publication 01‐E058. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePizzi LR, Goldfarb NI, Nash DB, Chapter 48: Procedures for obtaining informed consent. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ptsafety/chap48.htm. Accessed February 25, 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBraddock CH, 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 1999; 282: 2313 – 2320.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePizzi LR, Goldfarb NI, Nash DB. Procedures for obtaining informed consent. In: Shojania K, Duncan B, McDonald K, Wachter RM, editors. Making health care safer: A critical analysis of patient safety practices. Volume AHRQ publication 01‐E058. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001. p 546 – 554.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceiMedConsent. The standard of care for informed consent. Available at: http://www.dialogmedical.com/ic.htm. Accessed February 25, 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInformed consent: American Medical Association. Available at http://www,ana‐assn.org/ama/pub/category/4608.html. Accessed February 25, 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerg JW, Appelbaum PS, Parker LS, Lisz CW. Informed consent: Legal theory and clinical practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHopper KD, TenHave TR, Hartzel J. Informed consent forms for clinical and research imaging procedures: how much do patients understand? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 493 – 496.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJubelirer SJ, Linton JC, Magnetti SM. Reading versus comprehension: implications for patient education and consent in an outpatient oncology clinic. J Cancer Educ 1994; 9: 26 – 29.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyle CM. Difference between patients' and doctors' interpretation of some common medical terms. Br Med J 1970; 2: 286 – 289.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDawes PJ, O'Keefe L, Adcock S. Informed consent: the assessment of two structured interview approaches compared to the current approach. J Laryngol Otol 1992; 106: 420 – 424.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 54 – 59.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBottrell MM, Alpert H, Fischbach RL, Emanuel LL. Hospital informed consent for procedure forms: facilitating quality patient‐physician interaction. Arch Surg 2000; 135: 26 – 33.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE, Jr. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1985; 102: 520 – 528.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVHA Informed Consent for Clinical Treatments and Procedures. VHA Handbook. Washington DC: Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Health Administration 1004(1) January 29, 2003.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStewart MA. Effective physician‐patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 1995; 152: 1423 – 1433.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/clia/pdf/42cfr493_2003.pdf. Volume 2007; Federal Register. p Laboratory Requirements.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTanaka M, Chari S, Adsay V, et al. International Association of Pancreatology. International consensus guidelines for management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreatology 2006; 6: 17 – 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePancreatic Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology, Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal College of Pathologists, Special Interest Group for Gastro‐Intestinal Radiology. Guidelines for the management of patients with pancreatic cancer periampullary carcinomas. Gut 2005; 54: 1 – 16.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaron TH, Mallery JS, Hirota WK, et al. Guideline: Role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pancreaticobiliary malignancy bibliographic source (a). http://www.guidelinecentral.com/guidelines.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaron TH, Mallery JS, Hirota WK, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 643 – 649.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePatel AH, Harnois DM, Klee GG, LaRusso NF, Gores GJ. The utility of CA 19‐9 in the diagnoses of cholangiocarcinoma in patients without primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 204 – 207.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSiqueira E, Schoen RE, Silverman W, et al. Detecting cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 40 – 47.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteinberg WM, Gelfand R, Anderson KK, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of the CA19‐9 and carcinoembryonic antigen assays in detecting cancer of the pancreas. Gastroenterology 1986; 90: 343 – 349.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCotton PB, Lees WR, Vallon AG, Cottone M, Croker JR, Chapman M. Gray‐scale ultrasonography and endoscopic pancreatography in pancreatic diagnosis. Radiology 1980; 134: 453 – 459.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaylor KJ, Buchin PJ, Viscomi GN, Rosenfield AT. Ultrasonographic scanning of the pancreas. Prospective study of clinical results. Radiology 1981; 138: 211 – 213.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKarlson BM, Ekbom A, Lindgren PG, Källskog V, Rastad J. Abdominal US for diagnosis of pancreatic tumor: prospective cohort analysis. Radiology 1999; 213: 107 – 111.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeny PC, Lawson L. Radiology of the pancreas. New York, Springer‐Verlag, 1982.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLees WR. Pancreatic ultrasonography. Clin Gastroenterol 1984; 13: 763 – 789.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShmulewitz A, Teefey SA, Robinson BS. Factors affecting image quality and diagnostic efficacy in abdominal sonography: a prospective study of 140 patients. J Clin Ultrasound 1993; 21: 623 – 630.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTomiyama T, Ueno N, Tano S, Wada S, Kimura K. Assessment of arterial invasion in pancreatic cancer using color Doppler ultrasonography. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 1410 – 1416.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteiner E, Stark DD, Hahn PF, et al. Imaging of pancreatic neoplasms: comparison of MR and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152: 487 – 491.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVellet AD, Romano W, Bach DB, Passi RB, Taves DH, Munk PL. Adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic ducts: comparative evaluation with CT and MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 1992; 183: 87 – 95.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarshaw AL, Fernández‐del Castillo C. Pancreatic carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 455 – 465.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHollett MD, Jeffrey RB Jr, Nino‐Murcia M, Jorgensen MJ, Harris DP. Dual‐phase helical CT of the liver: value of arterial phase scans in the detection of small (< or = 1.5 cm) malignant hepatic neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 879 – 884.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeny PC, Marks WM, Ryan JA, Traverso LW. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and staging with dynamic CT. Radiology 1988; 166: 125 – 133.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeny PC, Traverso LW, Ryan JA. Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with dynamic computed tomography. Am J Surg 1993; 165: 600 – 606.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFuhrman GM, Charnsangavej C, Abbruzzese JL, et al. Thin‐section contrast‐enhanced computed tomography accurately predicts the resectability of malignant pancreatic neoplasms. Am J Surg 1994; 167: 104 – 111.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoi BI, Chung MJ, Han JK, Han MC, Yoon YB. Detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: relative value of arterial and late phases of spiral CT. Abdom Imaging 1997; 22: 199 – 203.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChong M, Freeny PC, Schmiedl UP. Pancreatic arterial anatomy: depiction with dual‐phase helical CT. Radiology 1998; 208: 537 – 542.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCarthy MJ, Evans J, Sagar G, Neoptolemos JP. Prediction of resectability of pancreatic malignancy by computed tomography. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 320 – 325.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNovick SL, Fishman EK. Three‐dimensional CT angiography of pancreatic carcinoma: role in staging extent of disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 139 – 143.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDupuy DE, Costello P, Ecker CP. Spiral CT of the pancreas. Radiology 1992; 183: 815 – 818.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoshimi F, Hasegawa H, Koizumi S, et al. Application of three‐dimensional spiral computed tomographic angiography to pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 116 – 117.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceColey SC, Strickland NH, Walker JD, Williamson RC. Spiral CT and the preoperative assessment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Clin Radiol 1997; 52: 24 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVedantham S, Lu DS, Reber HA, Kadell B. Small peripancreatic veins: improved assessment in pancreatic cancer patients using thin‐section pancreatic phase helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 377 – 383.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMidwinter MJ, Beveridge CJ, Wilsdon JB, Bennett MK, Baudouin CJ, Charnley RM. Correlation between spiral computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasonography and findings at operation in pancreatic and ampullary tumours. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 189 – 193.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMegibow AJ, Zhou XH, Rotterdam H, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: CT versus MR imaging in the evaluation of resectability–report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 1995; 195: 327 – 332.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIchikawa T, Haradome H, Hachiya J, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: preoperative assessment with helical CT versus dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1997; 202: 655 – 662.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMüller MF, Prasad P, Siewert B, Nissenbaum MA, Raptopoulos V, Edelman RR. Abdominal diffusion mapping with use of a whole‐body echo‐planar system. Radiology 1994; 190: 475 – 478.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRodgers PM, Ward J, Baudouin CJ, Ridgway JP, Robinson PJ. Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MR imaging of the portal venous system: comparison with x‐ray angiography. Radiology 1994; 191: 741 – 745.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBret PM, Reinhold C. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 1997; 29: 472 – 486.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReuther G, Kiefer B, Tuchmann A, Pesendorfer FX. Imaging findings of pancreaticobiliary duct diseases with single‐shot MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 453 – 459.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVitellas KM, Keogan MT, Spritzer CE, Nelson RC. MR cholangiopancreatography of bile and pancreatic duct abnormalities with emphasis on the single‐shot fast spin‐echo technique. Radiographics 2000; 20: 959 – 975.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSahani DV, Kadavigere R, Saokar A, Fernandez‐del Castillo C, Brugge WR, Hahn PF. Cystic pancreatic lesions: a simple imaging‐based classification system for guiding management. Radiographics 2005; 25: 1471 – 1484.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWalsh RM, Vogt DP, Henderson JM, et al. Natural history of indeterminate pancreatic cysts. Surgery 2005; 138: 665 – 670; discussion 670–671.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhalid A, Brugge W. ACG practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2339 – 2349.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCascinu S, Falconi M, Valentini V, Jelic S. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Pancreatic cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: v55 – v58.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
dc23095.pdf
Size:
209.5KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.