ReviewDiagnostic cytopathology2026
The Atypical and Suspicious for Malignancy Categories of the WHO Reporting System for Lymph Node, Spleen, and Thymus Cytopathology: Review of their Diagnostic Utility, Limitations, and Clinical Impact.
Review in Diagnostic cytopathology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) is the preferred first-line diagnostic tool for evaluating lymphadenopathy due to its minimally invasive nature and cost-effectiveness. However, cytopathological interpretation of lymph node FNAB remains challenging because of the wide morphological spectrum of lymphoid lesions. The World Health Organization (WHO) Reporting System for Lymph Nodes, Spleen, and Thymus Cytopathology (WHO System) incorporates the "Atypical" and "Suspicious for malignancy" ("SFM") categories to manage diagnostic uncertainty, yet their reproducibility and clinical implications remain undetermined.
methodsThis review with illustrative case-based applications of the WHO System discusses the use, diagnostic performance, and limitations of the "Atypical" and "SFM" categories. Comparative analysis of published data, including interobserver concordance and risk of malignancy (ROM) studies, has been performed, with reference to the Sydney System and the multicenter DELYCYOUS study.
resultsCases categorized as "Atypical" demonstrate highly variable ROM (28.6%-76.9%, mean ≈65%), reflecting heterogeneity in application and ancillary test integration, whereas the "SFM" category consistently exhibits high ROM (82%-100%, mean ≈95%). Interobserver agreement remains poor (κ = 0.075 for "Atypical"; κ = 0.104 for "Suspicious for malignancy"), highlighting interpretive subjectivity. Diagnostic pitfalls include artifactual monomorphism mimicking high-grade lymphoma and underdiagnosis of paucicellular Hodgkin lymphoma or T-cell proliferations. Ancillary tests, while essential, may also yield misleading results-such as monoclonal B-cell populations in reactive conditions-potentially leading to overinterpretation.
conclusionsThe "Atypical" and "SFM" categories are indispensable for diagnostic stratification and clinical management but suffer from limited reproducibility and intrinsic ambiguity. Their optimal application requires standardized diagnostic criteria of specific lesions, which are provided in the WHO System, institutional consistency, and integrated use of cytomorphological, immunophenotypical, and molecular data to minimize diagnostic uncertainty and improve 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.