The Cytological Diagnosis of a Malignant Effusion Is Independent of the Volume of Fluid Processed.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Diagnostic Cytopathology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1002/dc.25416
Michael Ann Priddy-Arrington, Shuo Niu, Emily M Wilson, Azad Bakht, Fatima Zahra Aly
{"title":"The Cytological Diagnosis of a Malignant Effusion Is Independent of the Volume of Fluid Processed.","authors":"Michael Ann Priddy-Arrington, Shuo Niu, Emily M Wilson, Azad Bakht, Fatima Zahra Aly","doi":"10.1002/dc.25416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The relationship between pleural fluid volume and cytological diagnosis of malignancy has been often investigated with conflicting conclusions on whether or not a minimum fluid volume should be defined. The primary objective of this retrospective investigation is to evaluate the relationship between fluid volume and cytological diagnosis of malignancy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 511 body fluid specimen reports received between January 2018 and December 2019 were examined to investigate the relationship between diagnosis of malignancy to volume and biochemical properties. Pleural fluid (n = 252) and peritoneal fluid (n = 250) specimens were binned into two volume groups (< 75 mL, ≥ 75 mL). Pericardial fluid specimens (n = 9) were excluded due to small sample size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prevalence of malignancy for pleural and peritoneal fluids was 20.2% and 20.08%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two volume groups. Malignant pleural effusions were associated with a serum to fluid protein ratio > 0.5 and malignant peritoneal effusions were associated with a serum ascites albumin gradient (SAAG) < 1.1 g/dL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study did not find a significant difference in the diagnosis of malignancy between volumes ≥ 75 mL and < 75 mL in either pleural or peritoneal fluid. Fluid volume is, therefore, not an adequacy criterion for detecting malignancy in either pleural or peritoneal fluid. Our analysis on the biochemical properties of each malignant fluid type was supportive of current use of Light's criteria and SAAG for effusion fluid evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11349,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","volume":" ","pages":"65-71"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.25416","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The relationship between pleural fluid volume and cytological diagnosis of malignancy has been often investigated with conflicting conclusions on whether or not a minimum fluid volume should be defined. The primary objective of this retrospective investigation is to evaluate the relationship between fluid volume and cytological diagnosis of malignancy.

Methods: A total of 511 body fluid specimen reports received between January 2018 and December 2019 were examined to investigate the relationship between diagnosis of malignancy to volume and biochemical properties. Pleural fluid (n = 252) and peritoneal fluid (n = 250) specimens were binned into two volume groups (< 75 mL, ≥ 75 mL). Pericardial fluid specimens (n = 9) were excluded due to small sample size.

Results: Prevalence of malignancy for pleural and peritoneal fluids was 20.2% and 20.08%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two volume groups. Malignant pleural effusions were associated with a serum to fluid protein ratio > 0.5 and malignant peritoneal effusions were associated with a serum ascites albumin gradient (SAAG) < 1.1 g/dL.

Conclusions: Our study did not find a significant difference in the diagnosis of malignancy between volumes ≥ 75 mL and < 75 mL in either pleural or peritoneal fluid. Fluid volume is, therefore, not an adequacy criterion for detecting malignancy in either pleural or peritoneal fluid. Our analysis on the biochemical properties of each malignant fluid type was supportive of current use of Light's criteria and SAAG for effusion fluid evaluation.

恶性渗出的细胞学诊断与处理的液体量无关。
背景:胸腔积液量与恶性肿瘤细胞学诊断之间的关系经常被研究,但关于是否应定义最小积液量的结论却相互矛盾。这项回顾性调查的主要目的是评估体液容量与恶性肿瘤细胞学诊断之间的关系:研究人员对 2018 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月间收到的共 511 份体液标本报告进行了研究,以调查恶性肿瘤诊断与体积和生化特性之间的关系。胸腔积液(n = 252)和腹腔积液(n = 250)标本被分为两个体积组(结果:胸腔积液和腹腔积液的恶性肿瘤发病率分别为 20.2% 和 20.08%,两个容量组之间无显著差异。恶性胸腔积液与血清与腹腔积液蛋白比值大于 0.5 有关,恶性腹腔积液与血清腹水白蛋白梯度(SAAG)有关:我们的研究并未发现恶性腹腔积液量≥ 75 mL 和≥ 75 mL 之间在诊断恶性腹腔积液方面存在明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostic Cytopathology
Diagnostic Cytopathology 医学-病理学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Diagnostic Cytopathology is intended to provide a forum for the exchange of information in the field of cytopathology, with special emphasis on the practical, clinical aspects of the discipline. The editors invite original scientific articles, as well as special review articles, feature articles, and letters to the editor, from laboratory professionals engaged in the practice of cytopathology. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the basis of scientific merit, practical significance, and suitability for publication in a journal dedicated to this discipline. Original articles can be considered only with the understanding that they have never been published before and that they have not been submitted for simultaneous review to another publication.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信