Show simple item record

Low-grade urothelial carcinoma: Reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on ThinPrep®

dc.contributor.authorXin, Weien_US
dc.contributor.authorRaab, Stephen S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMichael, Claire W.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-19T14:23:05Z
dc.date.available2006-04-19T14:23:05Z
dc.date.issued2003-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationXin, Wei; Raab, Stephen S.; Michael, Claire W. (2003)."Low-grade urothelial carcinoma: Reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on ThinPrep®." Diagnostic Cytopathology 29(3): 125-129. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/35312>en_US
dc.identifier.issn8755-1039en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/35312
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12951678&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractThe diagnostic criteria for low-grade urothelial lesions that have been described in the past were based on urinary specimens prepared by the cytospin method. Recognizing the recent popularity of the ThinPrep® methodology and the cytologic alterations it introduces to the cellular features, we sought to evaluate the reproducibility of these criteria in ThinPrep urinary samples. One hundred twenty-six ThinPrep urinary specimens with a tissue diagnosis of low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC) and 45 negative controls were evaluated. Three pathologists blindly reviewed the slides separately and the consensus on each feature was used in the study. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine which criteria in combination were most predictive of low-grade urothelial carcinoma. All specimens were evaluated for the following 18 features: nucleus/cytoplasm ratio, irregular nuclear border, cytoplasm homogeneity, cell clusters, high cellularity, prominent nucleoli, granular nuclear chromatin, hyperchromasia, acute inflammation, vesicular chromatin, nuclear molding, nuclear eccentricity, elongated nuclei, necrosis, anisonucleosis, irregular bordered fragments, absent cytoplasmic collar, and peripheral palisading. High nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio, irregular nuclear borders, and homogeneous cytoplasm (combination sensitivity of 59% and specificity of 100%) were the best predictive features for LGUC. Minor predictive criteria were eccentric nuclei and nuclear molding. ThinPrep provides well preserved, cleaner specimens without significantly altering the morphology. The three key criteria applied in cytospin specimens to diagnose LGUC were reproducible in ThinPrep specimens. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2003;29:125–129. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.en_US
dc.format.extent209528 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLife and Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherCancer Research, Oncology and Pathologyen_US
dc.titleLow-grade urothelial carcinoma: Reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on ThinPrep®en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPathologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Hospitals, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvaniaen_US
dc.identifier.pmid12951678en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35312/1/10311_ftp.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.10311en_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiagnostic Cytopathologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

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.