2020
DOI: 10.18231/j.jdpo.2020.038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative evaluation of combined application of fine needle aspiration cytology and flow cytometry with histopathology for the diagnosis of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Abstract: Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is widely used in the investigation of lymphadenopathy. A combination of FNAC and Flow cytometric immunophenotyping (FCI) can help to establish an accurate diagnosis and classification in most cases of NHL (Non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Aims: We evaluated the effectiveness of FNAC along with flow cytometry (FCM) with histopathology in the diagnosis and classification of NHL by applying FCI on a sample obtained from the FNAC of lymphoid tissue. Settings and Design: A cross-sectio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 14 publications
(20 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The combination of FNAC with FC provides a cheaper, quicker and reliable alternative to the standard histological evaluation for finding cancer cells [33,34]. However, some of the disadvantages of current FC methods include the inaccessibility to single-cell morphological information [35] and fluorescent assays of biochemical markers may be misleading if not exclusively expressed in cancer cells [35][36][37].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The combination of FNAC with FC provides a cheaper, quicker and reliable alternative to the standard histological evaluation for finding cancer cells [33,34]. However, some of the disadvantages of current FC methods include the inaccessibility to single-cell morphological information [35] and fluorescent assays of biochemical markers may be misleading if not exclusively expressed in cancer cells [35][36][37].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%