Background Pleural fluid cytology is an important diagnostic test used for the investigation of pleural effusions. There is considerable variability in the reported sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions (MPE) in the literature.
Objective The purpose of this review is to determine the diagnostic sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology for MPE, both overall and by tumour type, to better inform the decision-making process when investigating pleural effusions.
Data sources A literature search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was performed by four reviewers. Articles satisfying inclusion criteria were evaluated for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool.
Data extraction For quantitative analysis, we performed a metaanalysis using a binary random-effects model to determine pooled sensitivity. Subgroup analysis was performed based on primary cancer site and meta-regression by year of publication.
Synthesis Thirty-six studies with 6057 patients with MPE were included in the meta-analysis. The overall diagnostic sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology for MPE was 58.2% (95% CI 52.5% to 63.9%; range 20.5%–86.0%). There was substantial heterogeneity present among studies (I2 95.5%). For primary thoracic malignancies, sensitivity was highest in lung adenocarcinoma (83.6%; 95% CI 77.7% to 89.6%) and lowest in lung squamous cell carcinoma (24.2%; 95% CI 17.0% to 31.5%) and mesothelioma (28.9%; 95% CI 16.2% to 41.5%). For malignancies with extrathoracic origin, sensitivity was high for ovarian cancer (85.2%; 95% CI 74.2% to 96.1%) and modest for breast cancer (65.3%; 95% CI 49.8% to 80.8%).
Conclusions Pleural fluid cytology has an overall sensitivity of 58.2% for the diagnosis of MPE. Clinicians should be aware of the high variability in diagnostic sensitivity by primary tumour type as well as the potential reasons for false-negative cytology results.
PROSPERO registration number
- pleural disease
- lung cancer
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors SK, SNH, SC, RC, AI, MAM conducted abstract/full-text screening and systematic review; SK, MAM conducted meta-analysis and interpretation; SK, ID, KA, CZ-P, MAM conducted manuscript preparation. MAM had primary responsibility for final content and is guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.