ArticleCureus2026
Diagnostic Performance of the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System for Reporting Breast Fine-Needle Aspirates: A Cytology-Histopathology Correlation Study From Central India.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) remains a rapid, minimally invasive, and cost-effective diagnostic method for breast lesions. The International Academy of Cytology (IAC) Yokohama System standardizes breast FNAC reporting into five diagnostic categories linked to risk of malignancy (ROM). Objective The objective of this study was to categorize breast fine-needle aspirates using the IAC Yokohama System and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy by correlation with histopathology. Methods This observational diagnostic accuracy study included 105 patients who underwent breast FNAC at the Department of Pathology, Gandhi Medical College and Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. Aspirates were classified as C1 inadequate, C2 benign, C3 atypical, C4 suspicious for malignancy, or C5 malignant. Histopathology obtained during routine clinical management, rather than mandated by the study protocol, was used as the reference standard wherever available. Scenario A grouped C1-C2 as cytology-negative and C3-C5 as cytology-positive, whereas Scenario B grouped C1-C3 as cytology-negative and C4-C5 as cytology-positive. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals for category-specific ROM and binary diagnostic-performance estimates were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method. The area under the curve (AUC) with its confidence interval was estimated using the DeLong method. Results The cohort consisted of 99 female cases and six male cases. The Yokohama distribution was C1: five cases, C2: 69 cases, C3: 10 cases, C4: three cases and C5: 18 cases. Histopathology was available in 100 cases. ROM was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-84.2) for C1, 1.4% (95% CI 0.04-7.8) for C2, 40.0% (95% CI 12.2-73.8) for C3, 100.0% (95% CI 29.2-100.0) for C4 and 100.0% (95% CI 79.4-100.0) for C5. The primary diagnostic analysis yielded 23 true-positive, 70 true-negative, six false-positive and one false-negative results. Sensitivity was 95.8% (95% CI 78.9-99.9), specificity was 92.1% (95% CI 83.6-97.0), positive predictive value (PPV) was 79.3% (95% CI 60.3-92.0), negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.6% (95% CI 92.4-100.0), and overall accuracy was 93.0% (95% CI 86.1-97.1). Ordinal receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis yielded an AUC of 0.971 (95% CI 0.928-1.000). Conclusion The IAC Yokohama System provided clinically meaningful risk stratification and strong diagnostic performance in breast FNAC. The C3 atypical category remained the principal grey-zone group. C4 and C5 showed high observed ROM; however, the C4 estimate was based on only three cases and had limited statistical precision.
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.