Suppr超能文献

实验室区分中性粒细胞性恶性和类肺炎性胸腔积液。

Laboratory Discrimination Between Neutrophilic Malignant and Parapneumonic Pleural Effusions.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine.

Department of Clinical Pathology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Am J Med Sci. 2019 Aug;358(2):115-120. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2019.04.009. Epub 2019 Apr 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) occasionally demonstrates neutrophilic predominance, commonly found in parapneumonic pleural effusion (PPE). In comparison with lymphocytic MPE, neutrophilic MPE may have different characteristics associated with a more intense inflammatory response and poor prognosis. These characteristics of neutrophilic MPE may lead to inappropriate management and delayed diagnosis. Moreover, the limited diagnostic yield of microbiologic and cytologic tests makes early differential diagnosis between neutrophilic MPE and PPE more challenging. This study investigated objective laboratory findings to help distinguish neutrophilic MPE from PPE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with neutrophilic MPE and PPE. Routine blood and pleural fluid data of the 2 groups were compared, and the diagnostic performances of predictors for neutrophilic MPE were assessed using receiver-operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Forty-one and 140 patients with neutrophilic MPE and PPE, respectively, were included. In final analysis, serum C-reactive protein, pleural fluid neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and pleural fluid carcinoembryonic antigen were significantly different between the 2 groups. With cut-off values of C-reactive protein <6.0 mg/dL, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio <3.0 and carcinoembryonic antigen >8.0 ng/mL, the presence of any 2 or more parameters provided an area under the curve of 0.928 (95% CI, 0.851-0.999), yielding a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 98%, positive predictive value of 92% and negative predictive value of 96% for identifying MPE.

CONCLUSIONS

MPE should be considered even in patients with neutrophilic exudative effusion, especially if at least 1 predictor for neutrophilic MPE is present. Our results may help guide differentiation of neutrophilic MPE from PPE.

摘要

背景

恶性胸腔积液(MPE)偶尔表现为中性粒细胞优势,常见于类肺炎性胸腔积液(PPE)。与淋巴细胞性 MPE 相比,中性粒细胞性 MPE 可能具有不同的特征,与更强烈的炎症反应和不良预后相关。这些中性粒细胞性 MPE 的特征可能导致管理不当和诊断延迟。此外,微生物学和细胞学检查的诊断率有限,使得早期区分中性粒细胞性 MPE 和 PPE 更加具有挑战性。本研究旨在探讨有助于区分中性粒细胞性 MPE 和 PPE 的客观实验室发现。

材料与方法

对中性粒细胞性 MPE 和 PPE 患者进行回顾性研究。比较两组的常规血液和胸腔积液数据,并使用接受者操作特征曲线评估预测因子对中性粒细胞性 MPE 的诊断性能。

结果

分别纳入 41 例中性粒细胞性 MPE 和 140 例 PPE 患者。最终分析显示,两组患者的血清 C 反应蛋白、胸腔积液中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值和胸腔积液癌胚抗原存在显著差异。以 C 反应蛋白<6.0mg/dL、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值<3.0 和癌胚抗原>8.0ng/mL 作为截断值,存在任意 2 个或更多参数时,曲线下面积为 0.928(95%CI,0.851-0.999),敏感性为 88%,特异性为 98%,阳性预测值为 92%,阴性预测值为 96%,用于识别 MPE。

结论

即使在中性粒细胞渗出性胸腔积液患者中,也应考虑 MPE,尤其是至少存在 1 个中性粒细胞性 MPE 预测因子时。我们的结果可能有助于指导中性粒细胞性 MPE 与 PPE 的鉴别。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验