BackgroundThe International Academy of Cytology (IAC) Yokohama system is a recently proposed system for reporting breast cytology by fine needle aspiration biopsies (FNAB). Multiple studies are needed to confirm the risk of malignancy (ROM) of the various reporting categories of this system. The present article studies the accuracy of the IAC Yokohama system in our center.MethodsOver a period of 1 year (September 2018‐August 2019), all cases of breast masses assessed by FNAB and histological correlation were studied retrospectively. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) and overall accuracy of the IAC Yokohama system for diagnosing malignancy were assessed. The rates of malignancy (ROM) of each diagnostic category were also estimated.ResultsThree hundred and twenty‐one FNABs had cyto‐histological correlation. The percent sensitivity (with 95% Confidence Intervals) when the atypical, suspicious of malignancy and the malignant categories were regarded as positive for malignancy were 98.2% [95.5%, 99.5%], 96.0% [92.5%, 98.2%], and 86.7% [81.5%, 90.8%] respectively. The percent specificity (with 95% Confidence intervals) for the same categories in the same order were 59.5% [47.4%, 70.7%], 91.9% [83.2%, 97.0%], and 100% [95.1%, 100%] respectively. The area under curve (AUC) for diagnosing malignancy was 0.981[0.963, 0.993]. The ROM for the benign, atypical, suspicious of malignancy and malignant category were 8.3% [2.3%, 20.0%], 17.2% [5.8%, 35.8%], 77.8% [57.7%, 91.4%], and 100% [98.1%, 100%] respectively.ConclusionThe IAC Yokohama system is suitable for accurately reporting breast lesions on FNAB.
uterine curettage with Lowenstein-Jensen medium in patients with pyometra is probably not justified, a careful histologic examination of the uterine curettage would be valuable and the presence of granulatomatous inflammation may suggest Mycobacterium pyometra. Clinicians and pathologists should be aware of this condition in order to avoid delay in diagnosis and appropriate therapy.
Background
Classification of breast lesions into different cytological groups can accurately be done using the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) Yokohama System for reporting breast cytopathology. Fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of breast lesions has been considered to be the primary investigation in detecting breast cancers, especially in low‐cost settings. The main objective of this study was to prospectively re‐confirm the diagnostic accuracy of breast FNAB using the IAC Yokohama system. Additionally, separate secondary subgroup analysis was done to confirm the accuracy of breast FNAB excluding lymph‐node positive and lymphadenopathy positive tumors.
Material and methods
A prospective study was done on patients undergoing biopsy of breast lesions between September 01, 2019 and November 30, 2020 (519 biopsies on 487 unique patients). Of these 519 histopathology biopsies, 505 had corresponding FNAB report of the same site. The FNAB was reported using the IAC Yokohama system and the most suitable category was allotted in every case. The rates of malignancy for each category and the accuracy of breast FNAB in diagnosing malignancy were calculated.
Results
Of the total 487 patients, 120 cases were benign on histology, while 367 were malignant. The rates of malignancy in benign, atypical, suspicious and malignant categories were 5%, 25%, 71%, and 99.7%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of atypical, suspicious and malignant categories was calculated as 90.1%, 95.2%, and 93.3%, respectively.
Conclusion
The high diagnostic accuracy for each BIRADS category suggest excellent accuracy for Breast FNAB using the IAC Yokohama system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.