|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
1 Department of IMPI, Division of Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, F46 Huddinge University Hospital, SE-14186 Stockholm, Sweden
2 Department of Biophysics and Radiation Biology, Semmelweis University, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary
3 Department of Pathology, MÁV Hospital, H-1062 Budapest, Hungary
4 Department of Pathophysiology, Semmelweis University, H-1089 Budapest, Hungary
Dr Gulyás miklos.gulyas{at}impi.ki.se AimTo determine whether assays of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cholesterol in ascites add diagnostic value to cytology.
MethodsThe additional diagnostic efficacy of the biochemical assays was studied in the ascitic fluid from 130 patients, of whom 57 had peritoneal carcinomatosis. All diagnoses were verified by subsequent necropsy and/or histology.
ResultsCEA concentrations over 5 ng/ml indicated carcinomas, occasionally without peritoneal involvement of the tumour. However, increased values were significantly more common in cancer with peritoneal involvement (p < 0.01), giving a sensitivity of 51% and specificity of 97% for carcinomatosis. A cholesterol value exceeding 1.21 mmol/litre was found in 93% of cancers with peritoneal involvement, but it was not entirely specific (96%) for carcinomatosis. Simultaneous increases in CEA and cholesterol concentrations were specific for carcinomatosis and this combination increased the sensitivity for diagnosing carcinomatosis from 77% with cytology alone to 88%. The correct diagnosis could thus be made in five of 12 cases with inconclusive cytology.
ConclusionsThe measurements of both CEA and cholesterol concentrations in ascites give additional specific information about peritoneal carcinomatosis and can therefore be a useful adjunct to cytologyin particular, in inconclusive cases.
Key Words: ascitic fluid carcinoembryonic antigen cholesterol cytology
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D M Gore, S Bloch, W Waller, and P Cohen Peritoneal mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of probable urachal origin: a challenging diagnosis. J. Clin. Pathol., October 1, 2006; 59(10): 1091 - 1093. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
| Journal of Clinical Pathology | Molecular Pathology |