ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
FNAC Versus Core Needle Biopsy: A Comparative Study in Evaluation of Palpable Breast Lump.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Histopathological Analysis of Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy in Relation to Microcalcification Findings on Mammography: A Pictorial Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Occult breast cancer in an older woman: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Nuclear expression of BAP-1 in transvitreal incisional biopsies and subsequent enucleation of eyes with posterior choroidal melanoma.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Breast Cancer During Pregnancy: A Marked Propensity to Triple-Negative Phenotype.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBreast carcinoma is the most common malignant tumour and the leading cause of carcinoma death in women in world. The main purpose of FNAC or CNB of breast lumps is to confirm cancer preoperatively and to avoid unnecessary surgery in specific benign conditions. AIMS AND
objectiveThe objective of the study was to compare between Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) and Core Needle Biopsy (CNB) in the diagnosis of breast carcinoma with final histological diagnosis from excision specimen as it is gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective study was done on 50 cases. Patients undergoing all three procedures (Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy done at Department of Pathology; subsequent excision surgeries done at Department of General Surgery) were selected. May Grunwald Giemsa (MGG) and Papaniculou (PAP) staining were performed on cytology smears. Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining was done on both the CNB and tissue specimens obtained from subsequent excision surgeries to see the histological features.
resultsFNAC showed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were 69%, 100%, 100%, 38.1%, and 74% respectively in diagnosing carcinoma. CNB had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of 88.3%, 100%, 100%, 53.3% and 86%. Both FNAC and CNB showed statistically significant correlation with confirmatory HPE of excision specimen (p-value <0.05) in the diagnosis of breast carcinoma.
conclusionFine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is a rapid, less complicated, economical, reliable and relevant method for the preoperative pathological diagnosis of breast carcinoma in a developing nation like ours. If the initial FNAC is inadequate, core needle biopsy (CNB) can be a useful second line method of pathological diagnosis in order to minimize the chance of missed diagnosis of breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.