Lucía Ferreiro1, Francisco Gude2, María E Toubes3, Adriana Lama3, Juan Suárez-Antelo3, Esther San-José4, Francisco Javier González-Barcala1, Antonio Golpe1, José M Álvarez-Dobaño1, Carlos Rábade3, Nuria Rodríguez-Núñez3, Carla Díaz-Louzao5, Luis Valdés3. 1. Department of Pulmonology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain;; Interdisciplinary Research Group in Pulmonology, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain;; Department of Epidemiology of Common Diseases, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 3. Department of Pulmonology, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 4. Interdisciplinary Research Group in Pulmonology, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain;; Department of Clinical Analysis, University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 5. Statistics Unit, Department of Statistics and Operations Research, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no firm recommendations when cytology should be performed in pleural transudates, since some malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) behave biochemically as transudates. The objective was to assess when would be justified to perform cytology on pleural transudates. METHODS: Consecutive patients with transudative pleural effusion (PE) were enrolled and divided in two groups: malignant and non-MPE. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the probability of malignancy. Two prognostic models were considered: (I) clinical-radiological variables; and (II) combination of clinical-radiological and analytical variables. Calibration and discrimination [receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC)] were performed. RESULTS: A total of 281 pleural transudates were included: 26 malignant and 255 non-malignant. The AUC obtained with Model 1 (left PE, radiological images compatible with malignancy, absence of dyspnea, and serosanguinous appearance of the fluid), and Model 2 (the variables of Model 1 plus CEA) were 0.973 and 0.995, respectively. Although no false negatives are found in Models 1 and 2 to probabilities of 11% and 14%, respectively, by applying bootstrapping techniques to not find false negatives in 95% of other possible samples would require lowering the cut-off points for the aforementioned probabilities to 3% (Model 1) and 4% (Model 2), respectively. The false positive results are 32 (Model 1) and 18 (Model 2), with no false negatives. CONCLUSIONS: The applied models have a high discriminative ability to predict when a transudative PE may be of neoplastic origin, being superior to adding an analytical variable to the clinic-radiological variables.
BACKGROUND: There are no firm recommendations when cytology should be performed in pleural transudates, since some malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) behave biochemically as transudates. The objective was to assess when would be justified to perform cytology on pleural transudates. METHODS: Consecutive patients with transudative pleural effusion (PE) were enrolled and divided in two groups: malignant and non-MPE. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the probability of malignancy. Two prognostic models were considered: (I) clinical-radiological variables; and (II) combination of clinical-radiological and analytical variables. Calibration and discrimination [receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC)] were performed. RESULTS: A total of 281 pleural transudates were included: 26 malignant and 255 non-malignant. The AUC obtained with Model 1 (left PE, radiological images compatible with malignancy, absence of dyspnea, and serosanguinous appearance of the fluid), and Model 2 (the variables of Model 1 plus CEA) were 0.973 and 0.995, respectively. Although no false negatives are found in Models 1 and 2 to probabilities of 11% and 14%, respectively, by applying bootstrapping techniques to not find false negatives in 95% of other possible samples would require lowering the cut-off points for the aforementioned probabilities to 3% (Model 1) and 4% (Model 2), respectively. The false positive results are 32 (Model 1) and 18 (Model 2), with no false negatives. CONCLUSIONS: The applied models have a high discriminative ability to predict when a transudative PE may be of neoplastic origin, being superior to adding an analytical variable to the clinic-radiological variables.
Authors: Luis Valdés; Esther San-José; Lucía Ferreiro; Francisco-Javier González-Barcala; Antonio Golpe; José M Álvarez-Dobaño; María E Toubes; Nuria Rodríguez-Núñez; Carlos Rábade; Adriana Lama; Francisco Gude Journal: Lung Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Lucía Ferreiro; Juan Suárez-Antelo; José Manuel Álvarez-Dobaño; María E Toubes; Vanessa Riveiro; Luis Valdés Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Maribel Botana-Rial; Lorena Vázquez-Iglesias; Pedro Casado-Rey; María Páez de la Cadena; María Amalia Andrade-Olivié; José Abal-Arca; Laura García-Nimo; Lucía Ferreiro-Fernández; Luis Valdés-Cuadrado; María Esther San-José; Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Berrocal; Alberto Fernández-Villar Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 4.379