ArticleWorld journal of surgery2017
Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) in Breast Cancer: A Reappraisal Based on Retrospective Review of 698 Cases.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast fine-needle aspiration cytology in the era of core-needle biopsy: what is its role?Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2025Review
- Breast biopsy techniques in a global setting-clinical practice review.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2023Review
- Distribution of breast lesions diagnosed by cytology examination in symptomatic patients at Eritrean National Health Laboratory, Asmara, Eritrea: a retrospective study.BMC women's health · 2020Article
- Elite VABB 13G: A New Ultrasound-Guided Wireless Biopsy System for Breast Lesions. Technical Characteristics and Comparison with Respect to Traditional Core-Biopsy 14-16G Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCore needle biopsy is replacing fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) as the modality of choice for breast cancer diagnosis. This study was carried out to determine the usefulness of FNAC in breast cancer patients in a tertiary care center in North India.
methodsCase files of patients managed in the breast cancer clinic of a single surgical unit between 1993 and 2014 were reviewed. All patients who underwent FNAC at our institute or had their slides reviewed at our institute were included in the study. Patients operated on outside our center and those with FNAC reports which were not available for review were excluded. Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analyzed with SPSS version 21. True positives and false negatives for FNAC were noted from which sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated.
resultsFNAC was performed in 698 of 1310 patients. Mean age was 48.3 years. There were 9 (1.3%) male breast cancer patients. 696 (99.7%) patients had a palpable lump with a mean tumor size of 5.3 cm. 54.2% of the patients were clinically node positive. While over 80% of patients were diagnosed on the basis of FNAC before 2000, less than 50% of the patients had an FNAC after 2010. FNAC diagnosed malignancy in 627 patients, while it was inconclusive in 69 and false negative in two patients. No false-positive results were seen. These figures yield an absolute sensitivity of 89.8% and a complete sensitivity of 99.7% for FNAC with a 100% PPV.
conclusionsFNAC is a reliable tool for diagnosing cancer in suspicious breast lesions with a good sensitivity and PPV in hands of an experienced cytopathologist. Surgical treatment may be safely undertaken based on FNAC particularly in early operable breast cancers suitable for breast conservation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28160027What 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.