Bardales R H, Stanley M W, Schaefer R F, Liblit R L, Owens R B, Surhland M J
Department of Pathology, John L. McClellan Memorial Veterans Hospital, Little Rock, AR 72205-5484, USA.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1996 Jul;106(1):29-34. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/106.1.29.
The authors studied 112 pericardial fluids (45 malignant, and 67 benign) from 63 men and 33 women. All cytologic (n = 112) and histologic (n = 61) specimens were reviewed. Statistical analysis was conducted in 61 paired cytology and histology specimens (45 malignant and 16 benign) and correlated with available ploidy analysis of fluid specimens (n = 34). In cases of malignancy (41 patients), the primary site was known in 34 patients, whereas no origin for metastatic disease was apparent in 3 patients. Pericardial cytology yielded the initial diagnosis in four patients. After careful review of all cytology and histology specimens, seven truly discrepant cases were noted, six of which had positive cytology. Tissue biopsy sampling error was the cause for such discrepancies. DNA diploidy obtained by flow cytometry correlated with benign cytology, whereas aneuploidy was associated with malignant cytology in a total of 32 of 34 cases (94%). Cytologically malignant effusions rendered diploid DNA in 2 of 10 cases (20%). In conclusion, cytology is the single most important parameter in the evaluation of secondary pericardial malignancy and should be considered the gold standard. Causes for false-negative cytologic diagnoses include scant cellularity and obscuring blood. Hence, careful screening is recommended. The low sensitivity of flow cytometric DNA analysis does not favor its routine use.
作者研究了来自63名男性和33名女性的112份心包积液样本(45份恶性,67份良性)。对所有细胞学样本(n = 112)和组织学样本(n = 61)进行了复查。对61对细胞学和组织学配对样本(45份恶性和16份良性)进行了统计分析,并与可用的积液样本倍体分析(n = 34)进行了关联。在恶性肿瘤病例(41例患者)中,34例患者的原发部位已知,而3例患者未发现转移性疾病的起源。心包细胞学检查为4例患者做出了初步诊断。在仔细复查所有细胞学和组织学样本后,发现了7例真正有差异的病例,其中6例细胞学检查呈阳性。组织活检采样误差是导致这种差异的原因。通过流式细胞术获得的DNA二倍体与良性细胞学相关,而在34例中的32例(94%)中,非整倍体与恶性细胞学相关。在10例细胞学检查为恶性的积液中,2例(20%)呈现二倍体DNA。总之,细胞学是评估继发性心包恶性肿瘤的最重要单一参数,应被视为金标准。细胞学诊断假阴性的原因包括细胞数量少和血液干扰。因此,建议仔细筛查。流式细胞术DNA分析的低敏感性不支持其常规使用。