Abstract
Introduction Although the cytology of effusion fluids is considered a routine laboratory test, it has recently emerged as an essential tool in determining the primary site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary. The sensitivity for diagnosing malignancy has enhanced with the inclusion of cytospin, cell block (CB), and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to effusion fluid cytology due to the improvement in morphological preservation and good cellular yield. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of IHC and CB in effusion cytology. Methodology An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of six months on 150 cases of effusion fluids submitted for diagnostic purposes. After the preparation of cytospin, the residual amount of centrifuged deposit was mixed with CytoLyt solution, thrombin, and plasma, and CBs were prepared. IHC was applied to the CB. Calretinin was used for mesothelial cells, and BerEP4, TTF-1, ER, WT-1, and CD-X2 were used for the confirmation and origin of malignant cells. Results The mean age of the patients was 51.75 ± 16.63 years. The male-to-female ratio was 1:1.24. Out of 150 cases, 78 were pleural effusions, 68 were peritoneal effusions, and four were pericardial effusions. Out of 150 cases, based on cytological examination alone, 66 (44%) were classified as benign, 27 (18%) as malignant, and 57 (38%) were suspicious for malignancy. When cytology was combined with CB and IHC, the diagnostic yield was increased to benign 95 (63.33%), malignant 48 (32%), and suspicious for malignancy 7 (4.67%). The most common cause of malignant pleural effusion was breast carcinoma in females and lung carcinoma in males. The most common primary tumor in malignant peritoneal effusion was ovarian carcinoma in females and colonic adenocarcinoma in males. The sensitivity and specificity of combined cytology with cell block and IHC were 92.31% and 98.95%, respectively. This combination produced significantly better results (p-value = 0.001) for detecting malignancy and reduced suspicious cases from 38% to 4%. Conclusion CB, in combination with IHC, increases the diagnostic yield and aids in detecting malignancy at an unknown primary site in effusion fluids. Both of these techniques can thus enhance the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis of effusion cytology. Hence, CB and IHC have advanced utility over cytological smears in effusion fluid cytological diagnosis.