Why the study?
Does cytopathologic analysis of pericardial effusions predict prognosis in patients with pericardial effusions?
Does cytopathologic analysis of pericardial effusions predict prognosis in patients with pericardial effusions?
Cytopathologic evaluation of pericardial effusions is valuable for predicting prognosis, particularly in lung cancer patients, who represent the most common cause of malignant effusions.
Positive pericardial cytology may indicate poorer prognosis in lung cancer; supports hypothesis-generating studies but should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the cytology of pericardial effusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the etiologies of pericardial effusions and to establish the relationship between cytopathologic interpretations and outcome patterns among patients with pericardial effusions. METHODS: We identified 116 patients with pericardial effusions at a single institution over a 4-year period and carefully analyzed all available clinical documents, including clinical diagnoses, cytopathologic findings, and outcome patterns. RESULTS: The cohort was made up of 74 patients with malignancies, 39 with non-malignancy diseases, and 3 without available clinical diagnosis. Lung cancer was the most common malignancy (58 cases), followed by breast cancer (4 cases) and lymphoma/leukemia (4 cases). Among the 116 fluid samples, 43 cases were diagnosed as malignant, 66 were diagnosed as benign, and seven were diagnosed as ambiguous. The nature of the hemorrhage was an important feature of cytopathology-positive effusions. Patients with detectable malignant cells in pericardial effusions have a significantly poorer prognosis than those without malignant cells. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer is the most common cause of large quantities of pericardial effusions. The present findings suggest that cytopathologic evaluation is valuable to predict the prognosis of cancer patients with pericardial effusions. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2017;45:287-293.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: