ArticleCancer cytopathology2025
Comparative analysis of the World Health Organization Reporting System for Head and Neck Cytopathology and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology.
Article in Cancer cytopathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Significance of Incidentally Detected Parotid Masses on Brain MRI and PET-CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of the World Health Organization Reporting System for Head and Neck Cytopathology and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology.Cancer 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA comparative analysis of the International Academy of Cytology-International Agency for Research on Cancer-World Health Organization Reporting System for Head and Neck Cytopathology (WHO) and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) was performed.
methodsA total of 2218 salivary gland fine-needle aspiration samples collected at the Institut Curie, Paris (1954-2022) were evaluated, with 1356 having histological follow-up. Samples were classified according to the MSRSGC (nondiagnostic [ND], nonneoplastic [NN], atypia of undetermined significance [AUS], benign neoplasm [BN], salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential [SUMP], suspicious for malignancy [SM], and malignant [M]) and the WHO system (insufficient/inadequate/nondiagnostic, benign, atypical, neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential [NUMP], suspicious for malignancy [SM], and malignant [M]). The risk of malignancy (ROM) was calculated for each category, and diagnostic performance metrics were assessed.
resultsIn the MSRSGC, the ROM was ND, 50% (n = 2); NN, 16.8% (n = 149); AUS (no cases); BN, 4.3% (n = 514); SUMP, 50% (n = 2); SM, 56.1% (n = 66); and M, 98.2% (n = 623). In the WHO system, the ROM was insufficient/inadequate/nondiagnostic, 50% (n = 2); benign, 7.1% (n = 663); atypical (no cases); NUMP, 50% (n = 2); SM, 56.1% (n = 66); and M, 98.2% (n = 623). The WHO's "benign" category, which combines NN and BN, balanced the NN's higher ROM (16.8%) and BN's lower ROM (4.3%) into 7.1%. Excluding the ND and SUMP/NUMP categories, both systems demonstrated high diagnostic performance: sensitivity, 93.3%; specificity, 93.9%; positive predictive value, 94.2%; and negative predictive value, 92.9%.
conclusionsBoth systems effectively identify malignancy. The WHO system's merger of NN and BN into the benign category streamlines reporting and reduces variability, although it may mask clinically significant differences between nonneoplastic and benign neoplastic lesions.
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.