ArticleDiagnostic cytopathology2025
The Milan System SUMP Category: 5-Year Diagnostic Performance.
Article in Diagnostic cytopathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cell Blocks and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: A Meta-Analysis.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Pooled it
- Cytopathology Terminology Systems: European Federation of Cytological Societies Survey on Practice in Europe.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026Article
- The Milan System SUMP Category: 5-Year Diagnostic Performance.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundSalivary gland neoplasms are heterogeneous, with wide cytomorphological overlap. Neoplasms categorized in the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) as salivary gland neoplasms of uncertain malignant potential (SUMP) reflect this diagnostic challenge.
methodsAll salivary gland fine-needle aspirations (SG-FNA) diagnosed at Fimlab Laboratories over a 5-year period (January 1, 2018-December 31, 2022) that were classified as SUMP were included. Follow-ups were reviewed until May 31, 2024. The SUMP cases were classified into cytomorphological subtypes. The risk of malignancy (ROM), risk of neoplasm, and median timelines of the pathology laboratory workflow and patient management were calculated. In addition, separate analyses of the impact of age and sex were performed.
resultsA total of 1157 SG-FNAs were diagnosed over a 5-year period. Of these, 100 SG-FNAs from 52 females and 33 males were classified as SUMP. A total of 69 (69.0%) SUMP cases underwent histological verification. The ROM was 23.2% for all surgical follow-ups, 35.0% for the oncocytic/oncocytoid subtype, and 18.4% for the basaloid subtype. For the male and female groups, the ROMs were 26.9% and 16.2% for all surgical follow-ups, 40.0% and 14.3% for the oncocytic/oncocytoid subtype, and 18.8% and 16.7% for the basaloid subtype, respectively.
conclusionsThe 5-year analysis of SUMP category performance showed a lower ROM in our practice than the MSRSGC reference value. The oncocytic/oncocytoid subtype presented a higher ROM than the basaloid subtype. The ROMs were highest in the male population and in the age group of 30-69 years.
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.