Are we ready to develop a tiered scheme for the effusion cytology? A comprehensive review and analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND

Cytology is widely utilized in the initial evaluation of fluid accumulation in the body cavities. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of cytology in distinguishing between benign and malignant (MAL) effusions.

METHODS

A comprehensive and systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of serous effusion cytology (SEC) against tissue biopsy/resection histology, imaging, or clinical follow-up as the reference test. Risk of publication bias and level of heterogeneity in the included studies was assessed. Meta-regression was performed to assess the effect of various variables on the accuracy of SEC.

RESULTS

Eighty studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis comprising of 34 941 samples; of which 52 (0.2%), 22 202 (72.7%), 194 (0.6%), 711 (2.3%), and 6507 (21.3%) could be reclassified as nondiagnostic (ND), negative for malignancy (NFM), atypical (atypia of uncertain significance-AUS), suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and malignant (MAL), respectively. On follow-up, the mean risk of malignancy for ND, NFM, AUS, SFM, MAL was 17.4%, 20.7%, 65.9%, 81.8%, and 98.9%, respectively. A total of 73 studies were included in estimating the diagnostic accuracy of SEC. The bivariate mixed-effect model estimated the SEC sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio as 73.1%, 99.9%, 7850.6%, 2112.2%, and 0.27%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Serous effusion cytology shows high specificity and moderate sensitivity in the evaluation of serous effusions. A tiered classification scheme can improve the consistency of terminology for reporting SEC results, thus improving communication between the pathologists and clinical team, and quality of patient care.