ABSTRACT
Importance Pleural effusions frequently signal disseminated cancer. Diagnostic markers of pleural malignancy at presentation that would assess cancer risk and would streamline diagnostic decisions remain unidentified.
Objective The present study aimed at identifying and validating predictors of malignant pleural effusion at patient presentation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A consecutive cohort of 323 patients with pleural effusion (PE) from different etiologies were recruited between 2013-2017 and was retrospectively analyzed. Data included history, chest X-ray, and blood/pleural fluid cell counts and biochemistry. Group comparison, receiver-operator characteristics, unsupervised hierarchical clustering, binary logistic regression, and random forests were used to develop the malignant pleural effusion detection (MAPED) score. MAPED was validated in an independent retrospective UK cohort (n = 238).
Main Outcomes and Measures The outcome was diagnostic of pleural effusion in patients, and the clinical and laboratory indicators available of the patient were measured.
Results Five variables showed significant diagnostic power and were incorporated into the 5-point MAPED score. Age > 55 years, effusion size > 50% of the most affected lung field, pleural neutrophil count < 2,500/mm3, effusion protein > 3.5 g/dL, and effusion lactate dehydrogenase > 250 U/L, each scoring one point, predicted underlying cancer with the area under curve(AUC) = 0.819 (sensitivity=82%, specificity=74%, P < 10-15) in the derivation cohort. The AUC and net reclassification improvement (NRI) of MAPED score and cytology were not significantly different. However, the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) of The MAPED score displayed a slight increment (P <0.001). The calibration curves of the cytology model were slightly better than The MAPED score. Decision curve analysis (DCA) indicated that The MAPED score generated net clinical benefit. In the validation dataset, the results were generally consistent with the above findings, with an AUC of 0.723 (sensitivity=76%, specificity=62%, P =3*10-9) for The MAPED score. Interestingly, MAPED correctly identified 33/42(79%) of cytology-negative patients that indeed had cancer. The MAPED score is used to create nomogram so clinicians can predict the probability of malignant pleural effusions.
Conclusions The MAPED score identifies malignant pleural effusions with satisfactory accuracy and can be used complementary to cytology to streamline diagnostic procedures.
Competing Interest Statement
I.P. is employed as a Global Clinical Head by Astra Zeneca Pharmaceutical in a field that is non-related with the publication. The remaining authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by European Research Council 2010 Starting Independent Investigator (#260524) and 2015 Proof of Concept (#679345) grants, the Graduate College (Graduiertenkolleg, GRK) #2338 of the German Research Society (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), the target validation project for pharmaceutical development ALTERNATIVE of the German Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung, BMBF), and a Translational Research Grant by the German Center for Lung Research (Deutsches Zentrum fuer Lungenforschung, DZL) (all to GTS). The study sponsors had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and in writing and submitting the paper for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
MAPED and ORPB abided by the Helsinki Declaration, were prospectively approved (University of Patras Ethics Committee #22699/21.11.2013 and South Central Oxford A Ethics Committee #15/SC/0186), and all patients gave written informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We revised or/and added these figures(Figure 1-6) and added additional material.
Data Availability
All data are available by the corresponding author upon request.
