细针穿刺细胞学与核心针活检诊断可触及乳腺肿块的比较研究

Sharang S Kulkarni, S. Murchite, A. Patil
{"title":"细针穿刺细胞学与核心针活检诊断可触及乳腺肿块的比较研究","authors":"Sharang S Kulkarni, S. Murchite, A. Patil","doi":"10.26502/jsr.10020215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Comparative Study Between Fine Needle and Core Biopsy in the Palpable Abstract Background Breast carcinoma is a frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. An effective diagnosis is necessary to manage this cancer in its preliminary stages. After a radiological examination of the palpable breast lumps, a core needle biopsy (CNB) or fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), is performed. The study focuses on comparing the accuracy and efficacy of FNAC and CNB in diagnosing palpable breast lumps. Design A randomized, open-labeled, comparative research. Setting selected The randomization technique was used to divide patients into two groups, i.e., undergoing FNAC or CNB. The results thus obtained were compared the post-operative histopathological Biostatistical parameters such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Results The sensitivity of CNB and FNAC was 92.8% and 86.6% respectively, whereas the specificity and positive predictive value of both the tests were 100%. NPV of CNB was 95%, and that of FNAC was 90%. The accuracy of CNB was 96.96% and that of FNAC was 93.90%. Conclusion Better cellularity, the possibility of immunohistochemical analysis and better characterization of specimens make core needle biopsy more efficacious than FNAC. It is more sensitive and accurate than FNAC. Core needle biopsy provides a more dependable preoperative diagnosis which can help in creating a prudent algorithm for management of a palpable breast lump, thereby more often leading to definitive surgical treatment.","PeriodicalId":73961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of surgery and research","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Study Between Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Palpable Breast Lumps\",\"authors\":\"Sharang S Kulkarni, S. Murchite, A. Patil\",\"doi\":\"10.26502/jsr.10020215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A Comparative Study Between Fine Needle and Core Biopsy in the Palpable Abstract Background Breast carcinoma is a frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. An effective diagnosis is necessary to manage this cancer in its preliminary stages. After a radiological examination of the palpable breast lumps, a core needle biopsy (CNB) or fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), is performed. The study focuses on comparing the accuracy and efficacy of FNAC and CNB in diagnosing palpable breast lumps. Design A randomized, open-labeled, comparative research. Setting selected The randomization technique was used to divide patients into two groups, i.e., undergoing FNAC or CNB. The results thus obtained were compared the post-operative histopathological Biostatistical parameters such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Results The sensitivity of CNB and FNAC was 92.8% and 86.6% respectively, whereas the specificity and positive predictive value of both the tests were 100%. NPV of CNB was 95%, and that of FNAC was 90%. The accuracy of CNB was 96.96% and that of FNAC was 93.90%. Conclusion Better cellularity, the possibility of immunohistochemical analysis and better characterization of specimens make core needle biopsy more efficacious than FNAC. It is more sensitive and accurate than FNAC. Core needle biopsy provides a more dependable preoperative diagnosis which can help in creating a prudent algorithm for management of a palpable breast lump, thereby more often leading to definitive surgical treatment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of surgery and research\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of surgery and research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26502/jsr.10020215\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of surgery and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/jsr.10020215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要背景乳腺癌是世界范围内女性常见的一种癌症。有效的诊断对于控制这种癌症的早期阶段是必要的。在对可触及的乳房肿块进行放射检查后,进行核心针活检(CNB)或细针穿刺细胞学检查(FNAC)。比较FNAC和CNB诊断可触及乳腺肿块的准确性和有效性。设计一项随机、开放、比较的研究。采用随机化技术将患者分为两组,分别为FNAC组和CNB组。比较两组术后组织病理学生物统计学参数的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性。结果CNB和FNAC的敏感性分别为92.8%和86.6%,特异性和阳性预测值均为100%。CNB的NPV为95%,FNAC的NPV为90%。CNB的准确率为96.96%,FNAC的准确率为93.90%。结论芯针活检优于FNAC,具有更好的细胞性、免疫组化分析的可能性和更好的标本表征。它比FNAC更灵敏、准确。芯针活检提供了更可靠的术前诊断,可以帮助创建一个谨慎的算法管理可触及的乳房肿块,从而更经常导致明确的手术治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparative Study Between Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Palpable Breast Lumps
A Comparative Study Between Fine Needle and Core Biopsy in the Palpable Abstract Background Breast carcinoma is a frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. An effective diagnosis is necessary to manage this cancer in its preliminary stages. After a radiological examination of the palpable breast lumps, a core needle biopsy (CNB) or fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), is performed. The study focuses on comparing the accuracy and efficacy of FNAC and CNB in diagnosing palpable breast lumps. Design A randomized, open-labeled, comparative research. Setting selected The randomization technique was used to divide patients into two groups, i.e., undergoing FNAC or CNB. The results thus obtained were compared the post-operative histopathological Biostatistical parameters such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Results The sensitivity of CNB and FNAC was 92.8% and 86.6% respectively, whereas the specificity and positive predictive value of both the tests were 100%. NPV of CNB was 95%, and that of FNAC was 90%. The accuracy of CNB was 96.96% and that of FNAC was 93.90%. Conclusion Better cellularity, the possibility of immunohistochemical analysis and better characterization of specimens make core needle biopsy more efficacious than FNAC. It is more sensitive and accurate than FNAC. Core needle biopsy provides a more dependable preoperative diagnosis which can help in creating a prudent algorithm for management of a palpable breast lump, thereby more often leading to definitive surgical treatment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Modulation of Inflammatory Response by Electromagnetic Field Stimulation in Traumatic Brain Injury in Yucatan Swine. Understanding Fibrous Tissue in the Effective Healing of Rotator Cuff Injury. Critical Assessment of the Neurological Complications during High-Risk Anesthesia Procedures. Non-Tobacco Nicotine dependence associated with increased Postoperative Complications following Intramedullary Nailing for Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures. Health-Outcomes and Epidemiologic Research of Transgender Patients Requires Simple, Meaningful Diagnostic Codes: A Retrospective Review of California Emergency Department Visits.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1