메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
대한병리학회 Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 제45권 제3호
발행연도
2011.1
수록면
296 - 302 (7page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Background: The preparation of conventional smears (CS) from mucoid samples, despite mucol­ysis, can pose difficulties for cytotechnologists or cytopathologists. In recent years, liquid-based cytology (LBC) devices have been developed in attempts to improve the cytopreparation pro­cess. LBC improves both sample collection and sample preparation. Cell block preparations (CB) can be made from residual tissue fluids, and are a useful adjunct to smears. Methods: We retro­spectively reviewed 3 preparations from 209 patients whose diagnosis was later confirmed via bronchoscopic biopsy, fine needle aspiration, gun biopsy or operation. Each case was catego­rized into one of three groups: “negative,” “atypical or suspicious” and “malignant.” Results: When conflating the “atypical” and “malignant” categories into a “positive” category, the sensitiv­ity of each preparation was 74.4% in LBC, 72.9% in CS, and 76.5% in CB preparations. Speci­ficity was 98.7%, 94.7% and 98.7%, respectively. By combining LBC and CB, the sensitivity is 78.2%. Conclusions: Among three different preparation methods, sensitivity is highest in the CB method. LBC has many advantages in evaluating cell morphology and by combining CB method, the sensitivity can be improved slightly. The application of all three methods may prove helpful when one or another method proves diagnostically inconclusive.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (20)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0