Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39322185›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology and translational medicine2024

International Academy of Cytology standardized reporting of breast fine-needle aspiration cytology with cyto-histopathological correlation of breast carcinoma.

Shweta Pai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology and translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Shweta PaiUniversity Hospital Lewisham, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe International Academy of Cytology (IAC) has developed a standardized approach for reporting the findings of breast fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). Accordingly, there are five chief categories of breast lesions, C1 (insufficient material), C2 (benign), C3 (atypical), C4 (suspicious), and C5 (malignant). The prognostication and management of breast carcinoma can be performed readily on the basis of this classification system. The aim of this study was to classify various breast lesions into one of the above-named categories and to further grade the C5 lesions specifically using the Robinson system. The latter grades were then correlated with modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grades.

methodsThis retrospective study was undertaken in the pathology department of a hospital located in the urban part of the city of Bangalore. All FNAC procedures performed on breast lumps spanning the year 2020 were included in the study.

resultsA total of 205 breast lesions was classified according to the IAC guidelines into C1 (6 cases, 2.9%), C2 (151 cases, 73.7%), C3 (13 cases, 6.3%), C4 (5 cases, 2.5%), and C5 (30 cases, 14.6%) groups. The C5 cases were further graded using Robinson's system. The latter showed a significant correlation with the SBR system (concordance=83.3%, Spearman correlation=0.746, Kendall's tau-b=0.736, kappa=0.661, standard error=0.095, p≤.001).

conclusionsA standardized approach for FNAC reporting of breast lesions, as advocated for by the IAC, improves the quality and clarity of the reports and assures diagnostic reproducibility on a global scale. Further, the cytological grading of C5 lesions provides reliable cyto-prognostic scores that can help assess a tumor's aggressiveness and predict its histological grade.

Indexed as

Breast neoplasmsFine-needle aspirationsInternational Academy of CytologyRobinson’s gradingScarff-Bloom-Richardson grading

Identifiers

PMID39322185
PMCPMC11424197

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.