• 1
    Nayar R, Solomon D. Second edition of “The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology”-atlas, website, and Bethesda interobserver reproducibility project. Cytojournal. 2004;1:4.
  • 2
    Cibas ES, Ali SZ, NCI Thyroid FNA State of the Science Conference. The Bethesda System For Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:658665.
  • 3
    The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. National Cancer Institute Fine-Needle Aspiration of Breast Workshop Subcommittees. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:295311.
  • 4
    Schueler S, Schuetz GM, Dewey M. The revised QUADAS-2 tool. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:323; author reply 323-324.
  • 5
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629634.
  • 6
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557560.
  • 7
    Borenstein M, Higgins JP. Meta-analysis and subgroups. Prev Sci. 2013;14:134143.
  • 8
    Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002;21:15591573.
  • 9
    Brais RJ, Davies SE, O'Donovan M, et al. Direct histological processing of EUS biopsies enables rapid molecular biomarker analysis for interventional pancreatic cancer trials. Pancreatology. 2012;12:815.
  • 10
    LeBlanc JK, Emerson RE, Dewitt J, et al. A prospective study comparing rapid assessment of smears and ThinPrep® for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates. Endoscopy. 2010;42:389394.
  • 11
    Camus M, Trouilloud I, Villacis AL, et al. Effectiveness of combined endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and stenting in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24:12811287.
  • 12
    Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA, Michael H, Gress FG. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy. 2009;41:445448.
  • 13
    Pang JC, Minter RM, Kwon RS, Simeone DM, Roh MH. The role of cytology in the preoperative assessment and management of patients with pancreaticobiliary tract neoplasms. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:501510.
  • 14
    Petrone MC, Arcidiacono PG, Carrara S, Mezzi G, Doglioni C, Testoni PA. Does cytotechnician training influence the accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses? Dig Liver Dis.2012;44:311314.
  • 15
    Baron PL, Aabakken LE, Cole DJ, et al. Differentiation of benign from malignant pancreatic masses by endoscopic ultrasound. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:639643.
  • 16
    Cleveland P, Gill KR, Coe SG, et al. An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:11941199.
  • 17
    Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A. Prospective assessment of diagnostic utility and complications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: results from a newly developed academic endoscopic ultrasound program. Dig Dis. 2008;26:356363.
  • 18
    Meijer OL, Weersma RK, van der Jagt EJ, van Dullemen HM. Endoscopic ultrasonography in suspected pancreatic malignancy and indecisive CT. Neth J Med. 2010;68:360364.
  • 19
    Kliment M, Urban O, Cegan M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: the utility and impact on management of patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:13721379.
  • 20
    Fisher L, Segarajasingam DS, Stewart C, Deboer WB, Yusoff IF. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: performance and outcomes. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:9096.
  • 21
    Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:13861391.
    Direct Link:
  • 22
    Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:17051710.
  • 23
    Raddaoui E. Clinical utility and diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions: Saudi Arabian experience. Acta Cytol. 2011;55:2629.
  • 24
    Uehara H, Ikezawa K, Kawada N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic malignancy in relation to the size of lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;26:12561261.
  • 25
    Wani S, Early D, Kunkel J, et al. Diagnostic yield of malignancy during EUS-guided FNA of solid lesions with and without a stylet: a prospective, single blind, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:328335.
  • 26
    Zhang S, Defrias DV, Alasadi R, Nayar R. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA): experience of an academic centre in the USA. Cytopathology. 2010;21:3543.
  • 27
    Tadic M, Kujundzic M, Stoos-Veic T, Kaic G, Vukelic-Markovic M. Role of repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in small solid pancreatic masses with previous indeterminate and negative cytological findings. Dig Dis. 2008;26:377382.
  • 28
    Takahashi K, Yamao K, Okubo K, et al. Differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and focal pancreatitis by using EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:7679.
  • 29
    Horwhat JD, Gress FG. Defining the diagnostic algorithm in pancreatic cancer. JOP. 2004;5:289303.
  • 30
    Ylagan LR, Edmundowicz S, Kasal K, Walsh D, Lu DW. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic carcinoma: a 3-year experience and review of the literature. Cancer. 2002;96:362369.
  • 31
    Cherian PT, Mohan P, Douiri A, Taniere P, Hejmadi RK, Mahon BS. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary? HPB (Oxford). 2010;12:389395.
  • 32
    Layfield LJ, Morton MJ, Cramer HM, Hirschowitz S. Implications of the proposed thyroid fine-needle aspiration category of “follicular lesion of undetermined significance”: a 5-year multi-institutional analysis. Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37:710714.
  • 33
    Nayar R, Ivanovic M. The indeterminate thyroid fine-needle aspiration: experience from an academic center using terminology similar to that proposed in the 2007 National Cancer Institute Thyroid Fine Needle Aspiration State of the Science Conference. Cancer. 2009;117:195202.
  • 34
    Shi Y, Ding X, Klein M, et al. Thyroid fine-needle aspiration with atypia of undetermined significance: a necessary or optional category? Cancer. 2009;117:298304.
  • 35
    Renshaw AA. Should “atypical follicular cells” in thyroid fine-needle aspirates be subclassified? Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2010;118:186189.
  • 36
    Jo VY, Stelow EB, Dustin SM, Hanley KZ. Malignancy risk for fine-needle aspiration of thyroid lesions according to the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134:450456.
  • 37
    Somma J, Schlecht NF, Fink D, Khader SN, Smith RV, Cajigas A. Thyroid fine needle aspiration cytology: follicular lesions and the gray zone. Acta Cytol. 2010;54:123131.
  • 38
    Marchevsky AM, Walts AE, Bose S, et al. Evidence-based evaluation of the risks of malignancy predicted by thyroid fine-needle aspiration biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010;38:252259.
  • 39
    VanderLaan PA, Marqusee E, Krane JF. Clinical outcome for atypia of undetermined significance in thyroid fine-needle aspirations: should repeated fna be the preferred initial approach? Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135:770775.
  • 40
    Vanderlaan PA, Krane JF, Cibas ES. The frequency of ‘atypia of undetermined significance’ interpretations for thyroid fine-needle aspirations is negatively correlated with histologically proven malignant outcomes. Acta Cytol. 2011;55:512517.
  • 41
    VanderLaan PA, Renshaw AA, Krane JF. Atypia of undetermined significance and nondiagnostic rates in The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology are inversely related. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137:462465.
  • 42
    Jing X, Knoepp SM, Roh MH, et al. Group consensus review minimizes the diagnosis of “follicular lesion of undetermined significance” and improves cytohistologic concordance. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40:10371042.
  • 43
    Koen TM, Mody DR, Scheiber-Pacht M, Fairley T, Thrall MJ. Limiting the use of atypical/inconclusive as a category in nongynecologic cytology specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:10161019.
  • 44
    Crowe A, Linder A, Hameed O, et al. The impact of implementation of the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology on the quality of reporting, “risk” of malignancy, surgical rate, and rate of frozen sections requested for thyroid lesions. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2011;119:315321.
  • 45
    Eltoum IA, Chen VK, Chhieng DC, et al. Probabilistic reporting of EUS-FNA cytology: toward improved communication and better clinical decisions. Cancer. 2006;108:93101.