ArticleCureus2022
A Comparative Study Between Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy in Diagnosing Clinically Palpable Breast Lumps.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Ultrasound-Guided Intervention for Breast Lesions].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Most breast diseases present as palpable lumps. The accuracy of their diagnosis can be enhanced by a combination of clinical examination, mammography, fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), and core needle biopsy (CNB) preoperatively. The ultimate aim of FNAC or CNB of the breast mass is to confirm the diagnosis of cancer preoperatively, which may help avoid unnecessary surgeries for benign conditions. Histopathology is the gold standard to establish the diagnosis of a breast mass. In this study, we aimed to compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy of FNAC with those of trucut biopsy, and provide a combined assessment of FNAC and CNB against the final histopathological diagnosis of excised breast mass in suspected breast malignancies. Materials and methods This was a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study conducted for a duration of one year involving 42 patients with suspected breast cancer cases who underwent FNAC, CNB, and surgical excision followed by a histopathological examination. Data were collected and analyzed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy of FNAC and CNB in comparison with histopathology. Results The majority of the patients in the study (78.6%) were in the age group of 31-50 years. In our study, FNAC showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy of 74.1%, 76.9%, 87.0%, 64.7%, and 75% respectively. CNB had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy of 85.2%, 92.8%, 95.8%, 76.5%, and 87.8% respectively. The level of agreement between the two modalities (FNAC and CNB) was moderate and statistically significant (k=0.543; p<0.001). In the combined assessment of FNAC and CNB against final histopathological diagnosis for malignancy/borderline diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy were 89.3%, 85.7%, 92.6%, 80%, and 88.1% respectively. Conclusion The diagnostic accuracy of the combined assessment of FNAC and CNB against final histopathological diagnosis for malignancy/borderline diagnosis was better than that of FNAC or CNB alone. This finding shows that both the techniques complement each other. FNAC and CNB are used as the first- and second-line methods of pathological diagnosis respectively.
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.