Making a differential diagnosis between malignant and non-malignant ascites is an important clinical issue, but cytological examination has a relatively low diagnostic sensitivity. This study aimed to find a discriminative model that distinguished between malignancy-related and non-malignant ascites. The study included 107 patients: 50 with non-malignant and 57 with malignant ascites. Ascites was analysed using a range of tumour markers and standard cytology. Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients were used to distinguish between ascites types. The combination of carbohydrate antigen (CA) 15-3, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin 19 fragments (CYFRA-21.1) discriminated between malignancy-related ascites and non-malignant ascites with an accuracy of 98.8% compared with an accuracy of 77.8% for cytological examination. In conclusion, the use of a discriminant function constructed from a combination of CA15-3, CEA and CYFRA-21.1 could distinguish malignant from non-malignant ascites with greater accuracy than cytological examination. Further studies in larger population groups are warranted.
GlickmanRM: Abdominal swelling and ascites. In: Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (FauciASBraunwaldEKasperDLetal, eds) 15th edn.New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001; pp 260–262.
2.
RunyonBA: Approach to the patient with ascites. In: Textbook of Gastroenterology (YamadaTAlpersDHOwyangCetal, eds), 3rd edn.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999; pp 966–991.
3.
GarrisonRNKaelinLDHauserLS: Malignant ascites: Clinical and experimental observations. Ann Surg1986; 203: 644–651.
4.
MotherbyHNadjariBFriegelP: Diagnostic accuracy of effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol1999; 20: 350–357.
5.
RanaSVBabuSGKoccharR: Usefulness of ascitic fluid cholesterol as a marker for malignant ascites. Med Sci Monit2005; 11: CR136–CR142.
6.
DuffyMJMcGingP: Guidelines for the Use of Tumour Markers, 3rd edn.Scientific Committee of the Association of Clinical Biochemists in Ireland (ACBI). April 2005. Available at: http://www.acbi.ie/tm%20booklet%203rd%20edition%202005.pdf (last accessed 14 November 2008).
7.
RectorWGReynoldsTB: Superiority of the serum-ascites albumin difference over the ascites total protein concentration in separation of ‘transudative’ and ‘exudative’ ascites. Am J Med1984; 77: 83–85.
8.
ColliABuccinoGCoccioloM: Diagnostic accuracy of fibronectin in the differential diagnosis of ascites. Cancer1986; 58: 2489–2492.
9.
HoefsJC: Serum protein concentration and portal pressure determine the ascitic fluid protein concentration in patients with chronic liver disease. J Lab Clin Med1983; 102: 260–273.
10.
RunyonBAMontanoAAAkriviadisEA: The serum ascites albumin gradient is superior to the exudates-transudate concept in the differential diagnosis of ascites. Ann Int Med1992; 117: 215–220.
11.
ChenSJWangSSLuCW: Clinical value of tumor markers and serum-ascites albumin gradient in the diagnosis of malignancy related ascites. J Gastroenterol Hepatol1994; 9: 396–400.
12.
GhilainJMHenrionJSchapiraM: Ascitic fluid: The value of various biological tests in the differential diagnosis between cirrhotic and neoplastic ascites. Acta Gastroenterol Belg1990; 53: 168–179.
13.
RunyonBAHoefsJCMorganTR: Ascitic fluid analysis in malignancy related ascites. Hepatology1988; 8: 1104–1109.
14.
PrietoMGomez-LechonMJHoyosM: Diagnosis of malignant ascites: Comparison of ascitic fibronectin, cholesterol and serum ascites albumin difference. Dig Dis Sci1988; 33: 833–838.
15.
HayesDFBastRDeschCE: A tumor marker utility grading system (TMUGS): A framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst1996; 88: 1456–1466.
16.
LoewensteinMSRittgersRAFeinermanAE: Carcinoembryonic antigen assay of ascites and detection of malignancy. J Natl Cancer Inst1981; 66: 803–806.
17.
SariRYildirimBSevincA: The importance of serum and ascites fluid alphafetoprotein, carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19-9 and CA15-3 levels in differential diagnosis of ascites etiology. Hepatogastroenterology2001; 48: 1616–1621.
18.
MezgerJPermanetterWGerbesAL: Tumor associated antigens in diagnosis of serous effusions. J Clin Pathol1988; 41: 633–643.
19.
PintoMM: DNA analysis of malignant effusions: Comparison with cytologic diagnosis and carcinoembryonic antigen content. Anal Quant Cytol1992; 14: 222–226.
20.
GerbesALJüngstDXieYN: Ascitic fluid analysis for the differentiation of malignancy-related and nonmalignant ascites. Proposal of a diagnostic sequence. Cancer1991; 68: 1808–1814.
21.
CouchWD: Combined effusion fluid tumor marker assay, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), in the detection of malignant tumors. Cancer1981; 48: 2475–2479.
22.
Van MartinezAGatellJMSeguraF: Diagnostic value of tumoral markers in serous effusions. Cancer1982; 50: 1783–1788.
23.
DuffyMJ: CA15-3 and related mucins as circulating markers in breast cancer. Ann Clin Biochem1999; 36: 579–586.
24.
BarakVGoikeHPanaretakisKW: Clinical utility of cytokeratins as tumor markers. Clin Biochem2004; 37: 529–540.
25.
PorcelJMVivesMEsquerdaA: Use of a panel of tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 125, carbohydrate antigen 15-3, and cytokeratin 19 fragments) in pleural fluid for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions. Chest2004; 126: 1757–1763.
26.
GulyásMKaposiADElekG: Value of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cholesterol assays of ascitic fluid in cases of inconclusive cytology. J Clin Pathol2001; 54: 831–835.
