Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Sydney system for fine-needle aspiration biopsy of lymph nodes has five categories, stressing the role of correlation of cytopathology with clinical, ultrasound, and ancillary findings to achieve diagnosis. The five categories constitute a hierarchical system with increasing risk of malignancy from benign to atypical, suspicious, and malignant categories, which informs recommendations for further workup to achieve a final diagnosis as possible. This article analyzes 10 publications using the Sydney system and a meta-analysis of nine of these studies. The primary goal of the analysis is to ascertain the causes of the large ranges in risk of malignancy for the "atypical" and "inadequate" compared to "benign," "suspicious," and "malignant" categories, which were comparable to well-established reporting systems. Research protocols are proposed to improve future studies. METHODS: PubMed literature search from January 2021 to December 2023 identified studies evaluating performance of the Sydney system. RESULTS: Ten studies showed heterogeneity with clinical setting, study design, ultrasound use and rapid on-site evaluation, operator, cutoff points for "positive" cases, with inherent partial verification biases, resulting in a wide range of risk of malignancy, specificity, and sensitivity values. CONCLUSION: Analysis shows the large range is due to heterogeneity of the studies, which suffer from biases and variable statistical analysis that are ultimately included in any meta-analysis, detracting from the usefulness of the risk of malignancy derived by the meta-analysis. Components for ideal analyses of reporting systems are presented.