Mufaddal Kazi1, Rajinder Parshad2, V Seenu1, Sandeep Mathur3, K P Haresh4. 1. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 2. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. drrajinderparshad.aiims@gmail.com. 3. Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, BRAIRCH, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Core needle biopsy is replacing fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) as the modality of choice for breast cancer diagnosis. This study was carried out to determine the usefulness of FNAC in breast cancer patients in a tertiary care center in North India. METHODS: Case files of patients managed in the breast cancer clinic of a single surgical unit between 1993 and 2014 were reviewed. All patients who underwent FNAC at our institute or had their slides reviewed at our institute were included in the study. Patients operated on outside our center and those with FNAC reports which were not available for review were excluded. Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analyzed with SPSS version 21. True positives and false negatives for FNAC were noted from which sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: FNAC was performed in 698 of 1310 patients. Mean age was 48.3 years. There were 9 (1.3%) male breast cancer patients. 696 (99.7%) patients had a palpable lump with a mean tumor size of 5.3 cm. 54.2% of the patients were clinically node positive. While over 80% of patients were diagnosed on the basis of FNAC before 2000, less than 50% of the patients had an FNAC after 2010. FNAC diagnosed malignancy in 627 patients, while it was inconclusive in 69 and false negative in two patients. No false-positive results were seen. These figures yield an absolute sensitivity of 89.8% and a complete sensitivity of 99.7% for FNAC with a 100% PPV. CONCLUSIONS: FNAC is a reliable tool for diagnosing cancer in suspicious breast lesions with a good sensitivity and PPV in hands of an experienced cytopathologist. Surgical treatment may be safely undertaken based on FNAC particularly in early operable breast cancers suitable for breast conservation.
BACKGROUND: Core needle biopsy is replacing fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) as the modality of choice for breast cancer diagnosis. This study was carried out to determine the usefulness of FNAC in breast cancerpatients in a tertiary care center in North India. METHODS: Case files of patients managed in the breast cancer clinic of a single surgical unit between 1993 and 2014 were reviewed. All patients who underwent FNAC at our institute or had their slides reviewed at our institute were included in the study. Patients operated on outside our center and those with FNAC reports which were not available for review were excluded. Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analyzed with SPSS version 21. True positives and false negatives for FNAC were noted from which sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: FNAC was performed in 698 of 1310 patients. Mean age was 48.3 years. There were 9 (1.3%) male breast cancerpatients. 696 (99.7%) patients had a palpable lump with a mean tumor size of 5.3 cm. 54.2% of the patients were clinically node positive. While over 80% of patients were diagnosed on the basis of FNAC before 2000, less than 50% of the patients had an FNAC after 2010. FNAC diagnosed malignancy in 627 patients, while it was inconclusive in 69 and false negative in two patients. No false-positive results were seen. These figures yield an absolute sensitivity of 89.8% and a complete sensitivity of 99.7% for FNAC with a 100% PPV. CONCLUSIONS: FNAC is a reliable tool for diagnosing cancer in suspicious breast lesions with a good sensitivity and PPV in hands of an experienced cytopathologist. Surgical treatment may be safely undertaken based on FNAC particularly in early operable breast cancers suitable for breast conservation.
Authors: A Eltahir; J A Jibril; J Squair; S D Heys; A K Ah-See; G Needham; F J Gilbert; H E Deans; M E McKean; L M Smart; O Eremin Journal: J R Coll Surg Edinb Date: 1999-08
Authors: J E Meyer; D N Smith; S C Lester; C Kaelin; P J DiPiro; C M Denison; R L Christian; S C Harvey; D L Selland; S M Durfee Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-05-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Adetola Olubunmi Daramola; Mosebolatan Olatokunboh Odubanjo; Fred John Obiajulu; Nzechukwu Zimudo Ikeri; Adekunbiola Aina Fehintola Banjo Journal: Int J Breast Cancer Date: 2015-10-08
Authors: Ulrich Bick; Rubina M Trimboli; Alexandra Athanasiou; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A T Baltzer; Maria Bernathova; Krisztina Borbély; Boris Brkljacic; Luca A Carbonaro; Paola Clauser; Enrico Cassano; Catherine Colin; Gul Esen; Andrew Evans; Eva M Fallenberg; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Michel Herranz; Karen Kinkel; Fleur Kilburn-Toppin; Christiane K Kuhl; Mihai Lesaru; Marc B I Lobbes; Ritse M Mann; Laura Martincich; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Simone Schiaffino; Tamar Sella; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Anne Tardivon; Chantal Van Ongeval; Matthew G Wallis; Sophia Zackrisson; Gabor Forrai; Julia Camps Herrero; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2020-02-05