ArticleCytoJournal2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the Yokohama system for reporting breast fine-needle aspiration cytology and breast imaging-reporting and data system in breast lesions.
Article in CytoJournal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The Yokohama system standardizes fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) reporting for breast lesions, while the breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS) categorizes lesions based on imaging risk assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FNAC using the Yokohama System in correlation with BI-RADS classifications. Material and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 188 breast lesion cases that underwent FNAC and were categorized using the BI-RADS system. The breast FNAs were classified according to the Yokohama System and compared with histopathological diagnoses to calculate the risk of malignancy (ROM). The ROM for the BI-RADS categories was also determined. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for both. Results: According to the Yokohama classification, 5.9%, 52.1%, 4.8%, 8.5%, and 28.7% were classified as non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant, respectively. The majority of cases were classified as BIRADS 3 (23.9%) and 5 (23.9%), followed by 4a (22.3%). Higher Yokohama and BI-RADS categories were more prevalent among malignant cases, with 64.9% in Yokohama category 5 and 51.9% in BI-RADS 5. Sensitivity was highest in Yokohama Scenario C (81.8%), while specificity (96.4%) and PPV (92.6%) were highest in Scenario A. When BI-RADS 4b, 4c, 5, and 6 were considered malignant, Scenario C had the highest sensitivity (87.0%) and NPV (90.4%), while Scenario B demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (87.7%). Conclusion: FNAC using the Yokohama System and imaging-based BI-RADS classification both show high diagnostic accuracy for breast lesions. While their individual performance is comparable, further studies are needed to explore whether combining these modalities improves diagnostic outcomes in clinically indeterminate cases.
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.