ArticleCytoJournal2025
Comprehensive analysis of pancreatic fine needle aspiration cyto-histopathological correlation.
Article in CytoJournal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pancreatic cancer is a major global health challenge with high mortality rates and limited therapeutic options. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is a key diagnostic tool, but discrepancies between cytological and histological diagnoses can impact patient management. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic FNA using the World Health Organization (WHO) reporting system to assess the risk of malignancy (ROM) across different diagnostic categories. Material and Methods: The WHO reporting system was employed to reclassify 122 FNAs, with 37 cases undergoing subsequent histological correlation to evaluate the ROM. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of ROM using the WHO system were determined through statistical analyses. Results: The discrepancy rate between cytology and histology diagnoses was 16.2%. Category 6 (malignant) showed consistent ROM values (89%), confirming its reliability in predicting malignancy. However, Categories 1, 2, and 3 had higher ROM values than previously reported, while Category 4 had a lower ROM. Factors such as small lesion size, poor cellularity, and sampling limitations contributed to diagnostic discrepancies. Conclusion: The study offers significant insights into the cyto-histopathological correlation in pancreatic FNA, highlighting the effectiveness of the WHO reporting system in ROM assessment. Future research with larger samples is necessary to enhance the accuracy of pancreatic FNA cytology for improved patient outcomes.
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.