Literature DB >> 1913524

Ascitic fluid analysis for the differentiation of malignancy-related and nonmalignant ascites. Proposal of a diagnostic sequence.

A L Gerbes1, D Jüngst, Y N Xie, W Permanetter, G Paumgartner.   

Abstract

The authors tried to differentiate malignancy-related from nonmalignant ascites with a sequence of sensitive followed by specific ascitic-fluid parameters. There were four results of this study. First, of nine parameters investigated in a first series of 48 patients, 28 with nonmalignant and 20 with malignancy-related ascites, ascitic-fluid cholesterol and fibronectin yielded the best negative predictive value of 92% each. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytologic examination both showed a positive predictive value of 100%. Second, combining cytologic examination (sensitivity, 70%) and CEA determination (sensitivity, 45%) increased the sensitivity to 80%. Third, cytologic findings were negative in all ascitic-fluid samples with a cholesterol concentration below the cutoff value of 45 mg/100 ml. Fourth, based on the results of the first series of 48 patients, the diagnostic sequence with cholesterol as a sensitive parameter, followed by the combination of cytologic examination and CEA determination as specific parameters, was tested in a second series of 71 patients, 37 with nonmalignant and 34 with malignancy-related ascites. Again cytologic examination was negative in all samples with cholesterol levels below 45 mg/100 ml. In the total of 119 patients, this diagnostic sequence did not identify 9% of patients with malignancy-related ascites, and 82% of samples classified as malignancy related by cholesterol levels above 45 mg/100 ml were confirmed by positive cytologic examination and/or CEA level above 2.5 ng/ml. Thus, a diagnostic sequence with ascitic-fluid cholesterol determination, followed by cytologic examination and CEA determination, in samples with cholesterol levels above 45 mg/100 ml should permit a cost-efficient routine differentiation of malignancy-related from nonmalignant ascites.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1913524     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19911015)68:8<1808::aid-cncr2820680827>3.0.co;2-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  8 in total

1.  Value of combined detection of AFU and TCH in differential diagnosis between malignant and non-tuberculous benign ascites.

Authors:  Hong Zhang; Feng Li; Qun Wei; Yu-Fei Zhu
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 3.064

2.  Discrimination between malignant and nonmalignant ascites using serum and ascitic fluid proteins in a multivariate analysis model.

Authors:  M G Alexandrakis; J A Moschandrea; S A Koulocheri; E Kouroumalis; G D Eliopoulos
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Value of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cholesterol assays of ascitic fluid in cases of inconclusive cytology.

Authors:  M Gulyás; A D Kaposi; G Elek; L G Szollár; A Hjerpe
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Tumor-associated antigens in effusions of malignant and benign origin.

Authors:  A Ammon; H Eiffert; S Reil; J H Beyer; M Droese; W Hiddemann
Journal:  Clin Investig       Date:  1993-06

5.  Absence of host-secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) augments peritoneal ovarian carcinomatosis.

Authors:  Neveen Said; Kouros Motamed
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.307

6.  Biomarkers of malignant ascites-a myth or reality.

Authors:  Mithu Banerjee; Rajeshwar Singh; M M Arora; V Srinivas; D Basannar; Seema Patrikar
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of ascitic cholesterol concentration for malignant ascites: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hong Zhu; Yongchun Shen; Kai Deng; Xia Liu; Yaqin Zhao; Taiguo Liu; Ying Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-10-15

8.  Use of the term atypical cells in the reporting of ascitic fluid cytology: A caveat.

Authors:  Radha Ramachandra Pai; Krithika Damodar Shenoy; Jessica Minal; Pooja K Suresh; Shrijeet Chakraborti; Flora D Lobo
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 2.091

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.