Cytohistological correlation in serous effusions using the newly proposed International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology: Experience of an oncological center.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ascitic Fluid
/ pathology
Child
Child, Preschool
Cytodiagnosis
/ methods
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Pericardial Effusion
/ pathology
Pleural Effusion, Malignant
/ pathology
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Young Adult
international terminology
pericardial effusion
peritoneal effusion
pleural effusion
standardized report
Journal
Diagnostic cytopathology
ISSN: 1097-0339
Titre abrégé: Diagn Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8506895
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
revised:
14
03
2020
received:
02
01
2020
accepted:
07
04
2020
pubmed:
28
4
2020
medline:
17
11
2021
entrez:
28
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cytological analysis is part of the initial etiological evaluation of serous effusions. The newly proposed International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (ISRSFC) aims to standardize reporting. All pleural and peritoneal effusion samples admitted for cytological analysis at our institution between 2012 and 2016, and pericardial effusion samples admitted between 2008 and 2018, were reviewed and reclassified according to the ISRSFC. Risk of malignancy (ROM) and performance parameters were calculated. 1496 pleural effusion samples were reclassified: 12(0.8%) non-diagnostic (ND), 944(63.1%) negative for malignancy (NFM), 9(0.6%) atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 54(3.6%) suspicious of malignancy (SFM) and 477(31.9%) malignant (M). 64 pericardial effusion samples were reclassified: 23(35.9%) NFM, 1(1.6%) AUS, 4(6.3%) SFM and 36(56.2%) M. 763 peritoneal effusion samples were reclassified: 5(0.7%) ND, 457(59.9%) NFM, 12(1.6%) AUS, 37(4.8%) SFM and 252(33%) M. The ROM was, respectively, for each of the aforementioned categories, 57.1%, 23.9%, 50%, 76.2%, 100% in pleural effusions, 100%, 26.3%, 62.5%, 91.7%, 100% in peritoneal effusions and 0% for NFM, 0% for AUS and 100% for M in pericardial effusions. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy were, respectively, 61.6%, 100%, 100%, 73.3%, 81.3% for pleural, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100% for pericardial and 61.2%, 100%, 100%, 70%, 79.7% for peritoneal effusion samples. Serous effusion cytology has a high specificity and positive predictive value and a modest sensitivity and negative predictive value, supporting its role in confirming the diagnosis of malignancy. The ISRSFC will increase standardization and reproducibility in reporting, leading to improved clinical decision-making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cytological analysis is part of the initial etiological evaluation of serous effusions. The newly proposed International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (ISRSFC) aims to standardize reporting.
METHODS
METHODS
All pleural and peritoneal effusion samples admitted for cytological analysis at our institution between 2012 and 2016, and pericardial effusion samples admitted between 2008 and 2018, were reviewed and reclassified according to the ISRSFC. Risk of malignancy (ROM) and performance parameters were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1496 pleural effusion samples were reclassified: 12(0.8%) non-diagnostic (ND), 944(63.1%) negative for malignancy (NFM), 9(0.6%) atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 54(3.6%) suspicious of malignancy (SFM) and 477(31.9%) malignant (M). 64 pericardial effusion samples were reclassified: 23(35.9%) NFM, 1(1.6%) AUS, 4(6.3%) SFM and 36(56.2%) M. 763 peritoneal effusion samples were reclassified: 5(0.7%) ND, 457(59.9%) NFM, 12(1.6%) AUS, 37(4.8%) SFM and 252(33%) M. The ROM was, respectively, for each of the aforementioned categories, 57.1%, 23.9%, 50%, 76.2%, 100% in pleural effusions, 100%, 26.3%, 62.5%, 91.7%, 100% in peritoneal effusions and 0% for NFM, 0% for AUS and 100% for M in pericardial effusions. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy were, respectively, 61.6%, 100%, 100%, 73.3%, 81.3% for pleural, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100% for pericardial and 61.2%, 100%, 100%, 70%, 79.7% for peritoneal effusion samples.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Serous effusion cytology has a high specificity and positive predictive value and a modest sensitivity and negative predictive value, supporting its role in confirming the diagnosis of malignancy. The ISRSFC will increase standardization and reproducibility in reporting, leading to improved clinical decision-making.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
596-605Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Lee YM, Hwang JY, Son SM, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between CellprepPlus(R) and ThinPrep(R) liquid-based preparations in effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42(5):384-390.
Rossi ED, Bizzarro T, Schmitt F, Longatto-Filho A. The role of liquid-based cytology and ancillary techniques in pleural and pericardic effusions: an institutional experience. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123(4):258-266.
Gecmen C, Gecmen GG, Ece D, et al. Cytopathology of pericardial effusions: experience from a tertiary center of cardiology. Herz. 2018;43(6):543-547.
Sangisetty SL, Miner TJ. Malignant ascites: a review of prognostic factors, pathophysiology and therapeutic measures. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;4(4):87-95.
DeBiasi EM, Pisani MA, Murphy TE, et al. Mortality among patients with pleural effusion undergoing thoracentesis. Eur Respir J. 2015;46(2):495-502.
Gerbes AL, Jungst D, Xie YN, Permanetter W, Paumgartner G. Ascitic fluid analysis for the differentiation of malignancy-related and nonmalignant ascites. Proposal of a diagnostic sequence. Cancer. 1991;68(8):1808-1814.
Loveland P, Christie M, Hammerschlag G, Irving L, Steinfort D. Diagnostic yield of pleural fluid cytology in malignant effusions: an Australian tertiary Centre experience. Intern Med J. 2018;48(11):1318-1324.
Farahani SJ, Baloch Z. Are we ready to develop a tiered scheme for the effusion cytology? A comprehensive review and analysis of the literature. Diagn Cytopathol. 2019;47(11):1145-1159.
Pai RR, Shenoy KD, Minal J, Suresh PK, Chakraborti S, Lobo FD. Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: a caveat. CytoJournal. 2019;16:13.
Saab J, Hoda RS, Narula N, et al. Diagnostic yield of cytopathology in evaluating pericardial effusions: clinicopathologic analysis of 419 specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(2):128-137.
Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DF. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. New York, NY: Springer; 2016.
Ali SZ, Cibas ES. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Vol 11. New York, NY: Springer; 2010.
Chandra A, Crothers B, Kurtycz D, Schmitt F. Announcement: the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology. Acta Cytol. 2019;63(5):349-351.
Rossi E, Bizzarro T, Martini M, et al. The role of liquid based cytology and ancillary techniques in the peritoneal washing analysis: our institutional experience. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0168625.
Froudarakis ME, Plojoux J, Kaspi E, et al. Positive pleural cytology is an indicator for visceral pleural invasion in metastatic pleural effusions. Clin Respir J. 2018;12(3):1011-1016.
Heffner JE, Klein JS. Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of malignant pleural effusions. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(2):235-250.
Awadallah SF, Bowling MR, Sharma N, Mohan A. Malignant pleural effusion and cancer of unknown primary site: a review of literature. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(15):353.
Allen VA, Takashima Y, Nayak S, Manahan KJ, Geisler JP. Assessment of false-negative ascites cytology in epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a study of 313 patients. Am J Clin Oncol. 2017;40(2):175-177.
Dragoescu EA, Liu L. Pericardial fluid cytology: an analysis of 128 specimens over a 6-year period. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121(5):242-251.
Hsu C. Cytologic detection of malignancy in pleural effusion: a review of 5,255 samples from 3,811 patients. Diagn Cytopathol. 1987;3(1):8-12.
Cox JT. Liquid-based cytology: evaluation of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and application to present practice. J Natl Compr Cancer Network: JNCCN. 2004;2(6):597-611.
Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2007;335(7609):28.
Halford JA, Batty T, Boost T, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep imaging system for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010;38(5):318-326.
Yeon MH, Jeong HS, Lee HS, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology (CellPrepPlus) and conventional smears in pancreaticobiliary disease. Korean J Intern Med. 2018;33(5):883-892.
Martini M, Capodimonti S, Cenci T, et al. To obtain more with less: Cytologic samples with ancillary molecular techniques-the useful role of liquid-based cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142(3):299-307.
Rossi ED, Zannoni GF, Moncelsi S, et al. Application of liquid-based cytology to fine-needle aspiration biopsies of the thyroid gland. Front Endocrinol. 2012;3:57.
Hoda RS. Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35(10):621-634.
Gabriel C, Achten R, Drijkoningen M. Use of liquid-based cytology in serous fluids: a comparison with conventional cytopreparatory techniques. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(6):825-835.
Ylagan LR, Zhai J. The value of ThinPrep and cytospin preparation in pleural effusion cytological diagnosis of mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;32(3):137-144.
Skok K, Hladnik G, Grm A, Crnjac A. Malignant pleural effusion and its current management: a review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019;55(8):490.
Arnold DT, De Fonseka D, Perry S, et al. Investigating unilateral pleural effusions: the role of cytology. Eur Respir J. 2018;52(5):1801254.