Diagnostic Validity of FNAC and Trucut Biopsy with Post Operative Histopathological Report in Cases of Breast Lumps at a Tertiary Care Center


Aditi Vijay Dalvi
Hemant Borse


Introduction: Lump in breast is a common complaint in surgical practice. The lesions of the breast have diverse aetiology and presentation may range from a benign tumour, cyst or a malignancy. The diagnostic methods for palpable breast lumps should be rapid, inexpensive, most accurate and least invasive to evaluate and distinguish between benign and malignant lumps in outpatient clinics. Thus, patients are more compliant and surgeons can be more certain about the definitive management. Aims and Objectives: In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FNAC and TRUCUT biopsy in screening of palpable breast lumps by taking histopathological reports as gold standard. Materials and Methods: It is a Diagnostic validity test, undertaken in the department of surgery in a tertiary care centre. Data collection was done by extensive history taking, clinical examination, FNAC, TRUCUT biopsy and post-operative histopathology. Results: Study was conducted on 145 patients. Out of the total, 99 (68.3%) reports were benign pathologies; fibroadenoma (61.6%) was the most common, while 46 (31.7%) were malignant pathologies and intra-ductal carcinoma was the most common (40 out of 46 cases; 88.9%). Overall diagnostic accuracy of FNAC was 93.1%, whereas that of TRUCUT biopsy was 96.6%. Conclusion: We thus conclude that both FNAC and TRUCUT biopsy are accurate methods in breast diagnostic practice. The methods are complementary and depend on the skill and experience of the individuals performing the sampling and interpretation. The clinicians should also know the advantages and disadvantages of both the procedures to decide accordingly.


How to Cite
Dalvi, A. V., & Borse, H. (2020). Diagnostic Validity of FNAC and Trucut Biopsy with Post Operative Histopathological Report in Cases of Breast Lumps at a Tertiary Care Center. MVP Journal of Medical Sciences, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.18311/mvpjms/2020/v7i2/24559


  1. Johnson C, Benign breast disease. Nurse Pract Forum. 1999, 10(3):137-144.
  2. Bukhari MH, Akhtar ZM. Comparison of accuracy of diagnostic modalities for evaluation of breast cancer with review of literature. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2009; 37(6):416- 424. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.21000. PMid:19217034.
  3. Lieu D. Value of cyto-pathologist-performed ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration as a screening test for ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy in nonpalpable breast masses. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2009; 37(4):262-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20984. PMid:19217029.
  4. Lannin DR, Silverman JF, Walker C, Pories WJ. Cost-effectiveness of fine needle biopsy of the breast. Annals of Surgery. 1986; 203(5):474-480. https://doi. org/10.1097/00000658-198605000-00005. PMid:3085603 PMCid:PMC1251147
  5. Moolgavkar SH, Day NE, Stevens RG. Two-stage model for carcinogenesis: Epidemiology of breast cancer in females. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1980 Sep.; 65(3):559-569.
  6. Colditz GA, Rosner B. Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: Data from the Nurses’ Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Nov 15; 152(10):950-964. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/152.10.950. PMid:11092437.
  7. National Center for Health Statistics. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1995. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1998.
  8. Homesh NA, Issa MA, El-Sofiani HA, The diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology versus core needle biopsy for palpable breast lump(s). Saudi Med J. 2005; 26(1):42-46.
  9. Pruthi A. Detection and evaluation of a palpable breast mass. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001; 76:641-648. https://doi. org/10.4065/76.6.641. PMid:11393504.
  10. Haas JS, Kaplan CP, Brawarsky P, Kerlikowske K. Evaluation and outcomes of women with a breast lump and a normal mammogram result. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005 Aug 1; 20(8):692-696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525- 1497.2005.0149.x. PMid:16050876 PMCid:PMC1490178.
  11. Dawood SS, Lei X, Dent R, Mainwaring PN, Gupta S, Cortes J, Gonzalez-Angulo AM. Impact of marital status on prognostic outcome of women with breast cancer.
  12. Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, et al. Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12:703-11. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011240019516. PMid:11562110.
  13. Braaten T, Weiderpass E, Kumle M, et al. Education and risk of breast cancer in the Norwegian-Swedish women’s lifestyle and health cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2004; 110:579- 583. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.20141. PMid:15122591. 14. Braaten T, Weiderpass E, Kumle M, Lund E. Explaining the socioeconomic variation in cancer risk in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005; 14(11 Pt 1):2591-2597. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0345. PMid:16284383.
  14. Fujino Y, Mori M, Tamakoshi A, et al. for the JACC Study Group. A prospective study of educational background and breast cancer among Japanese women. Cancer Causes Control. 2008; 19(9):931-937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-008-9154-5. PMid:18389378.