Predictive Value of Cytokeratin 7 Immunohistochemistry in Cervical Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion as a Marker for Risk of Progression to a High-grade Lesion
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Jack Cuzick,et al. The Interpretive Variability of Cervical Biopsies and Its Relationship to HPV Status , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[2] M. Stoler,et al. Risk Stratification By p16 Immunostaining of CIN1 Biopsies: A Retrospective Study of Patients From the Quadrivalent HPV Vaccine Trials , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[3] F. McKeon,et al. Microanatomy of the cervical and anorectal squamocolumnar junctions: a proposed model for anatomical differences in HPV-related cancer risk , 2015, Modern Pathology.
[4] P. Delvenne,et al. Unique recurrence patterns of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after excision of the squamocolumnar junction , 2015, International journal of cancer.
[5] S. Alouini. Relevance of random biopsy at the transformation zone when colposcopy is negative. , 2015, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[6] K. Kuo,et al. Molecular alterations in endometrial and ovarian clear cell carcinomas: clinical impacts of telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutation , 2015, Modern Pathology.
[7] J. Berkhof,et al. The increased detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia when using a second biopsy at colposcopy. , 2014, Gynecologic oncology.
[8] D. Bouron‐Dal Soglio,et al. Assessment of correlation between p16INK4a staining, specific subtype of human papillomavirus, and progression of LSIL/CIN1 lesions: first comparative study. , 2014, American journal of clinical pathology.
[9] B. Badhe,et al. Role of p16, CK17, p63, and Human Papillomavirus in Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Distinction From Its Mimics , 2014, International journal of surgical pathology.
[10] F. Smedts,et al. Oncogenic Human Papillomavirus–infected Immature Metaplastic Cells and Cervical Neoplasia , 2014, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[11] G. Collina,et al. Prognostic value of p16‐INK4A protein in women with negative or CIN1 histology result: A follow‐up study , 2014, International journal of cancer.
[12] F. McKeon,et al. Cervical Squamocolumnar Junction–specific Markers Define Distinct, Clinically Relevant Subsets of Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions , 2013, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[13] Robert P Berkowitz,et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.
[14] M. Schiffman,et al. Follow-up Testing After Colposcopy: Five-Year Risk of CIN 2+ After a Colposcopic Diagnosis of CIN 1 or Less , 2013, Journal of lower genital tract disease.
[15] C. Wheeler,et al. Cervical histopathology variability among laboratories: a population-based statewide investigation. , 2013, American journal of clinical pathology.
[16] F. McKeon,et al. A novel blueprint for ‘top down’ differentiation defines the cervical squamocolumnar junction during development, reproductive life, and neoplasia , 2013, The Journal of pathology.
[17] David C Wilbur,et al. The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-Associated Lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. , 2012, Journal of lower genital tract disease.
[18] K. Münger,et al. A discrete population of squamocolumnar junction cells implicated in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[19] O. Falcón,et al. Follow-up after LLETZ: a study of 682 cases of CIN 2-CIN 3 in a single institution. , 2012, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.
[20] H. Cejtin,et al. Factors Influencing Persistence or Recurrence of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia After Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure , 2011, Journal of lower genital tract disease.
[21] M. Stoler,et al. Using Biomarkers as Objective Standards in the Diagnosis of Cervical Biopsies , 2010, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[22] M. Hirsch,et al. Histological ‘progression’ from low (LSIL) to high (HSIL) squamous intraepithelial lesion is an uncommon event and an indication for quality assurance review , 2010, Modern Pathology.
[23] Jason D. Wright,et al. Natural history of established low grade cervical intraepithelial (CIN 1) lesions. , 2008, Anticancer research.
[24] F. Smedts,et al. CK17 and p16 expression patterns distinguish (atypical) immature squamous metaplasia from high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2008, Histopathology.
[25] Calum MacAulay,et al. Kappa statistics to measure interrater and intrarater agreement for 1790 cervical biopsy specimens among twelve pathologists: qualitative histopathologic analysis and methodologic issues. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.
[26] J. Sturmberg,et al. Complexity and healthcare organization: a view from the street , 2005, International Journal of Integrated Care.
[27] J. T. Cox,et al. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.
[28] K. Cho,et al. Atypical immature metaplasia (AIM) of the cervix: is it related to high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)? , 1999, Human pathology.
[29] P W Hamilton,et al. Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: comparison of grading systems. , 1996, Journal of clinical pathology.