Can We Improve the Cytologic Examination of Malignant Pleural Effusions Using Molecular Analysis?

Malcolm V. Brock,Craig M. Hooker,Rex Yung,Mingzhou Guo,Yu Han,Stephen E. Ames,David Chang,Stephen C. Yang,David Mason,Marc Sussman,Stephen B. Baylin,James G. Herman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.05.088
IF: 5.113
2005-01-01
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Abstract:Currently, 40% of patients remain undiagnosed after routine cytologic examination for malignant pleural effusions. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) methylation is a robust strategy for detecting cancer early in tissue. We hypothesized that DNA methylation would be more sensitive in diagnosing patients with malignant pleural effusions than cytology.We conducted a prospective cohort study of 31 inpatients with pleural effusions (24 malignant pleural effusions metastatic from 10 different organs and 7 benign) over 18 months. Aspirated pleural fluid underwent cytologic examination and DNA extraction for nested methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We assayed for promoter hypermethylation in 8 genes known to be methylated in many cancers. Pleural fluid was considered positive if 2 or more genes were methylated by methylation-specific PCR.Cytology alone confirmed malignant pleural effusions in 15 of 24 patients (sensitivity 63%), whereas methylation alone positively identified 16 of 24 patients (sensitivity 67%). Both tests had 100% specificity in predicting benign effusions. If cytology and methylation were considered together, they exhibited 88% sensitivity and 100% specificity in discriminating benign and malignant effusions. Combined, the two assays were more sensitive than either test alone. Although the positive predictive value of each test was 100%, the negative predictive value of cytology and methylation combined was 78%, better than 47% and 44% for methylation and cytology alone, respectively.Epigenetic analysis of pleural fluid can detect malignant DNA from a variety of neoplasms, provide complementarity with cytology, and improve the diagnostic yield of the current standard examination of pleural fluid.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?