Introduction/Background*The presentstudywascarried out over a 1-year period (January 2017-December 2017) and conductedat the cytology unit of PathologyDepartment (Salah Azaiez Institute, Tunisia). It included all patients withbreastlesionreferred to our unit. Smearswerefixed and stained by May GrünwaldGiemsa .Cytologyresultswerecategorizedaccording to the NCI by twocytopathologistsindependently.

Methodology The presentstudywascarried out over a 1-year period (January 2017-December 2017) and conductedat the cytology unit of PathologyDepartment (Salah Azaiez Institute, Tunisia). It included all patients withbreastlesionreferred to our unit. Smearswerefixed and stained by May GrünwaldGiemsa .Cytologyresultswerecategorizedaccording to the NCI by twocytopathologistsindependently.

Result(s)*FNAC interpretivecategorizationwas as follows : 188 (31,3%)inadequate (C1), 378 (63%) benign (C2), 1 (0,16%) atypical, probablybenign (C3), 31 (5,14%) suspicious of malignancy (C4) and 2 (0,4%) malignant (C5).The histopathologicalexamination of category C3 showed a benignlesion.Histopathologicalexamination of category C4 wasassessedonly for 20 patients. 14/20 cases showedbenignlesions, in one case an in-situ carcinomawasdiagnosed and 5/20 cases showedmalignancy.The positive predictive value of C4 category in the diagnosis of malignancywas 30%.

Conclusion*FNA is a safe and cost-effective technique for the diagnosis of breastlesions, especiallywhencorrelatedwithclinical and imagingstudies. It has achievedgreat importance in diagnosis and management of palpable breastlesions. However, we must beaware of possibility of “false positive” and “false negative” resultsespecially for categories C3 and C4.