Why the study?
Diagnosing the etiology of pleural effusion is challenging due to limitations of conventional tests, and research on mNGS for simultaneously identifying causes like tuberculosis or malignancy is limited.
Does metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) accurately identify the causes of pleural effusion compared to established diagnostic criteria in patients with pleural effusion?
Does metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) accurately identify the causes of pleural effusion compared to established diagnostic criteria in patients with pleural effusion?
mNGS is an effective diagnostic tool for distinguishing malignant from non-malignant pleural effusion, but lacks sensitivity for diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid metagenomic PE etiology diagnosis; leaves open need for validation before clinical adoption.
Background Pleural effusion (PE), frequently encountered in clinical practice, can arise from a variety of underlying conditions. Accurate differential diagnosis of PE is crucial, as treatment and prognosis are heavily dependent on the underlying etiology. However, diagnosing the cause of PE remains challenging, relying on mycobacteriological methods that lack sensitivity and are time-consuming, or on histological examinations that require invasive biopsies. The recent advancements in metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) have shown promising applications in the diagnosis of infectious diseases. Despite this, there is limited research on the utility of mNGS as a comprehensive diagnostic tool for simultaneously identifying the causes of PE, particularly in cases of tuberculosis or malignancy. Methods This study aimed to assess the efficacy of mNGS in detecting tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) and malignant pleural effusion (MPE). A total of 35 patients with PE were included, and their PE samples were analyzed using mNGS. Results Among the participants, 8 were ultimately diagnosed with TPE, and 10 were diagnosed with MPE, with lung adenocarcinoma being the most prevalent pathological type (50%, 5/10), according to established diagnostic criteria. Additionally, 7 patients were diagnosed with non-infectious PE. However, mNGS identified only 2 cases of TPE and 8 cases of MPE. The sensitivity of mNGS for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis was 25% (2/8), while the specificity was 100%. For tumor detection, mNGS demonstrated a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 92.6%, and an AUC of 0.882. Conclusion mNGS is effective in distinguishing MPE from non-MPE, but is not suitable for diagnosing TPE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: