4.7 Article

Pleural fluid analysis of lung cancer vs benign inflammatory disease patients

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 102, Issue 7, Pages 1180-1184

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605607

Keywords

pleural fluid; lung cancer; inflammation; pleural effusion; cytology; tumour markers

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Correct diagnosis of pleural effusion (PE) as either benign or malignant is crucial, although conventional cytological evaluation is of limited diagnostic accuracy, with relatively low sensitivity rates. METHODS: We identified biological markers accurately detected in a simple PE examination. We analysed data from 19 patients diagnosed with lung cancer (nine adeno-Ca, five non-small-cell Ca (not specified), four squamous-cell Ca, one large-cell Ca) and 22 patients with benign inflammatory pathologies: secondary to trauma, pneumonia or TB. RESULTS: Pleural effusion concentrations of seven analysed biological markers were significantly lower in lung cancer patients than in benign inflammatory patients, especially in matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9, MMP-3 and CycD1 (lower by 65% (P<0.000003), 40% (P<0.0007) and 34% (P<0.0001), respectively), and in Ki67, ImAnOx, carbonyls and p27. High rates of sensitivity and specificity values were found for MMP-9, MMP-3 and CycD1: 80 and 100%; 87 and 73%; and 87 and 82%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results are of significant merit in both the clinical and pathogenetic aspects of lung cancer, further research aimed at defining the best combination for marker analysis is warranted. The relative simplicity in analysing these markers in any routine hospital laboratory may result in its acceptance as a new diagnostic tool. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 1180 -1184. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605607 www.bjcancer.com Published online 9 March 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available