ArticleCancers2026
Clinical Applicability of the WHO Reporting System for Axillary Lymph Node Fine-Needle Aspiration in Invasive Breast Carcinoma.
Article in Cancers, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAxillary lymph node (ALN) fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) can guide the next steps in the management of patients with invasive breast carcinoma (BC). The objective is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ALN FNA in the detection of metastatic breast carcinoma.
methodsWe evaluated ALN FNAs from 2020 to 2024 to determine the risk of malignancy (ROM) of different cytologic diagnostic categories using a general WHO cytology reporting system framework (insufficient, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant).
resultsA total of 290 axillary lymph node FNAs from patients with newly diagnosed invasive breast carcinoma were identified, of which 226 (78%) had histologic and/or adequate clinical follow-up. Cytologic diagnoses included six (2.1%) non-diagnostic, 99 (34.1%) benign, two (0.7%) atypical, seven (2.4%) suspicious for malignancy, and 176 (60.7%) malignant cases. The risk of malignancy (ROM) was 50.0% for non-diagnostic, 17.0% for benign, 100% for atypical, 85.7% for suspicious, and 99.2% for malignant diagnoses. Most false-negative benign cases were attributed to sampling limitations rather than interpretive error, with five cases showing only a single sentinel lymph node metastasis measuring <5 mm. Indeterminate diagnoses were most commonly associated with scant cellularity, acellular cell blocks, obscuring blood or fibrin, and equivocal immunohistochemistry. Excluding cases without histologic follow-up, ALN FNA demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.5%, specificity of 97.4%, positive predictive value of 98.5%, negative predictive value of 79.2%, and overall accuracy of 90.3% for the detection of metastatic breast carcinoma (OR = 243.2, Fisher's exact test,
conclusionALN FNA is a highly reliable method for confirming axillary lymph node metastasis in invasive breast carcinoma when malignant cells are identified, with a ROM of 99% for the malignant category. The suspicious category was also strongly associated with malignancy (ROM 86%). However, the 17% ROM observed in the benign category indicates that a negative FNA does not reliably exclude metastatic disease, and surgical nodal staging may still be warranted in clinically or radiologically suspicious cases. These findings support the clinical applicability of the WHO System for Reporting Lymph Node Cytopathology and provide breast carcinoma-specific ROM estimates for this clinical setting.
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.