Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38118434›Full record

ReviewActa cytologica2024

Pitfalls in Lymph Node Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology.

Min En Nga

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta cytologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Radiology case reports · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Navigating the Diagnostic Challenges in Lymph Node Cytology: The Case of Reactive Hyperplasia.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Min En NgaDepartment of Pathology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
National University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is an accurate, minimally invasive, and cost-effective biopsy method for enlarged lymph nodes. While the role of lymph node FNAC in the diagnosis of infectious or reactive conditions and metastatic malignancy is unquestioned, differing views still exist on its role in the diagnosis of lymphoma. Nevertheless, regardless of the practice setting, pitfalls and potential for error exist, and it is incumbent upon the pathologist to be aware of these pitfalls, as this is the first line of defence against errors. SUMMARY: This discussion will focus on potential interpretational errors, specifically highlighting scenarios leading to false-negative and false-positive diagnosis and errors in tumour classification, with an emphasis on cytomorphology. Potential entities that may fly below the radar of the pathologist - so-called off-radar entities - are also discussed, as a reminder to consider broad differentials in cases with unusual morphologic features. Some reasons for false-negative diagnoses include low-grade lymphomas that mimic a mixed, polymorphous reactive lymphoid population or aspirates with a paucity of lesional cells, through either sampling error or the intrinsic nature of the entity, e.g., nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma. Some of the potential causes of false-positive diagnoses that are discussed include viral-associated lymphadenopathy, Kikuchi-Fujimoto lymphadenitis, or benign adnexal lesions mimicking metastatic malignancy. Errors in tumour classification covered include metastatic carcinoma, sarcoma, melanoma, and lymphoma mimicking each other, and Hodgkin lymphoma and its mimics. Finally, less common entities such as follicular dendritic cell sarcoma and others are briefly mentioned, to remind us of conditions that may slip under our diagnostic radar. KEY MESSAGES: A systematic review of diagnostic pitfalls and traps is elucidated here, with some tips to avoid these traps. The triple approach to the diagnostic workup is emphasised, which includes rigorous clinicopathologic correlation, attention to cytomorphology, and judicious application of ancillary tests.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsLymph NodesBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCytodiagnosisDiagnosis, DifferentialFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymphomaDiagnostic errorFalse negativeFalse positiveLymph node cytologyMimics in lymph node cytologyPitfall

Identifiers

PMID38118434
PMCPMC11305520
OpenAlexW4389993902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.