Literature DB >> 7991525

The value of multiple fluid specimens in the cytological diagnosis of malignancy.

L W Garcia1, B S Ducatman, H H Wang.   

Abstract

Multiple fluid specimens of a patient are often received in the cytology laboratory. Both clinicians and pathologists question the optimal number of specimens required to detect a malignancy. We reviewed the computerized cytology files at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital from 1988 to 1991 to identify patients with two or more specimens from the same anatomic site. Two hundred and fifteen patients with a total of 570 specimens were identified. Before December 19, 1990, two direct smears were examined per fluid sample. After December 19, 1990, two direct smears and two cytospin preparations were examined. Medical records of patients without a positive diagnosis of cytology were reviewed. Overall, a cytological diagnosis of malignancy was made on at least one specimen for 55 patients (26%). The first positive diagnosis was made on the initial specimen in 36 patients (65%), on the second in 15 patients (27%), the third in three patients (5%), and the fifth in one patient (2%). For those specimens prepared with the two techniques described above (two direct and two concentrated smears), the first positive diagnosis was made on the initial specimen in 89% of the cases. Medical record review uncovered 55 additional patients who had clinical evidence of malignancy. Of these, 22 (40%) had at least one suspicious diagnosis of their fluid specimens. The first suspicious diagnosis was made with three or fewer specimens in all 22 patients. The majority of malignant effusions are detected with two specimens. Examination of more than three specimens is of little value. Multiple preparatory, especially concentration, techniques may increase the probability of detecting malignancy in one specimen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7991525

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  29 in total

1.  BTS guidelines for the investigation of a unilateral pleural effusion in adults.

Authors:  N A Maskell; R J A Butland
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  78-year-old man with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, dyspnea, and hypotension.

Authors:  John P Bois; Alfred G Valles; Lawrence J Sinak
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 3.  Interpreting pleural fluid results .

Authors:  Rachel M Mercer; John P Corcoran; Jose M Porcel; Najib M Rahman; Ioannis Psallidas
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 4.  Pleural effusion.

Authors:  A R Medford; A Medford; N Maskell
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 5.  Evaluation of the patient with pleural effusion.

Authors:  Stéphane Beaudoin; Anne V Gonzalez
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  Medical thoracoscopy and its evolving role in the diagnosis and treatment of pleural disease.

Authors:  Vivek Murthy; Jamie L Bessich
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 7.  Diagnosis and management of malignant pleural effusions: state of the art in 2017.

Authors:  Neeraj R Desai; Hans J Lee
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 8.  Management of malignant pleural effusion.

Authors:  Jack A Kastelik
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2013-01-13       Impact factor: 2.584

9.  Use of circulating tumor cell technology (CELLSEARCH) for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions.

Authors:  Daniel E Schwed Lustgarten; Jeffrey Thompson; Gordon Yu; Anil Vachani; Bhavesh Vaidya; Chandra Rao; Mark Connelly; Michelle Udine; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Steven Albelda
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2013-12

10.  Diagnostic and therapeutic performance of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in investigation and management of pleural exudates.

Authors:  A R L Medford; Y M Awan; A Marchbank; J Rahamim; J Unsworth-White; P J K Pearson
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 1.891

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.