Objective: The author evaluated a consecutive group of peritoneal washings (PWs) performed in the evaluation of adnexal masses to determine whether the conventional histopathologic prognostic parameters significantly affect the tumor detection rate using this procedure. Study Design: Cytopathologic reports from all PWs performed over a 13-year (1996–2008) period in the evaluation of malignant and borderline ovarian tumors were reviewed and correlated with those of the synchronously obtained histopathologic specimens. Tumors of low malignant potential (LMP) were separated for analysis. Statistical significance was determined using the χ2 test. Results: In the study, a total of 134 PWs were associated with primary epithelial malignant tumors (n = 114) or tumors of LMP (n = 20) involving the ovary. The positive PW cytopathology rates for clear cell (83.3%), undifferentiated (80.0%), and serous carcinomas (65.7%) were higher than the overall average positive rate (62.3%) for all histopathologic subtypes. In contrast, endometrioid (41.2%) and mucinous (45.5%) carcinomas had markedly lower cytopathology-positive rates than the overall average positive rate (p = 0.118). As expected, PWs were found to be significantly more likely to yield malignant cells in higher-grade (grades II + III, 71.1%, p = 0.002) and higher-stage (stages III + IV) tumors (76.6%, p = 0.000) than in lower-grade (grade I, 38.7%) and lower-stage (stages I + II) tumors (32.4%) and also in tumors with lymph node involvement (72.7%, p = 0.021) than in tumors without lymph node involvement (46.7%) and in bilateral tumors (74.6%, p = 0.004) than in unilateral tumors (42.9%). The positive cytopathology rates for the PWs of the corresponding primary ovarian carcinomas with prominent pleomorphism (81.0%, p = 0.007), with high mitotic score (80.0%, p = 0.006) and solid architecture (72.9%, p = 0.122) were also higher than the overall average positive rate. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and efficiency for the ovarian carcinoma (n = 114) cases were 72.3, 85, 95.8, 39.5 and 74.6%, respectively. The positive cytopathology rate for the PWs of the serous tumors of LMP (7.1%) was higher than that of the mucinous tumors of LMP (0.0%) and the overall average positive cytopathology rate (5.0%) for the ovarian tumors with LMP. The calculated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and efficiency for tumors of LMP were 33.3, 100, 100, 89.5, and 90%, respectively. Conclusion: PW cytopathology results correlate significantly with almost all of the conventional histopathologic prognostic parameters and the cyto-histomorphologic parameters of the corresponding primary ovarian carcinomas. The positive cytopathology rates also differ according to the histopathologic subtypes. False negativity and ‘false positivity?’ was significantly correlated with tumor grade.

Keywords:
Borderline, Cytology, Cytopathology, Ovarian cancer, Peritoneal washing
1.
Fadare O, Mariappan MR, Wang S, Hileeto D, McAlpine J, Rimm DL: The histologic subtype of ovarian tumors affects the detection rate by pelvic washings. Cancer 2004;102:150–156.
2.
Zuna RE, Behrens A: Peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic cancers: long-term follow-up of 355 patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:980–987.
3.
Rubin S, Wong G, Curtin J, Barahat R, Hakes T, Hoskins W: Platinum-based chemotherapy of high risk stage I epithelial ovarian cancer following comprehensive surgical staging. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:143–147.
4.
Sharifi S, Ducatman BS, Wang HH, Fraser JL: Peritoneal washing cytology is unnecessary in gynecologic surgery for benign diseases. Cancer 1999;87:259–262.
5.
Willett GD: Prognostic value of cytologic peritoneal washings. Clin Lab Med 1985;5:265–274.
6.
Keetel WC, Elkins HB: Experience with radioactive colloidal gold in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1956;71:553–568.
7.
Creasman WT, Rutledge F: The prognostic value of peritoneal cytology in gynecologic malignant disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971;110:773–781.
8.
Colgan TJ, Boerner SL, Murphy J, Cole DE, Narod S, Rosen B: Peritoneal lavage cytology: an assessment of its value during prophylactic oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2002;85:397–403.
9.
Fujiwara K, Yamauchi H, Yoshida T, Suzuki S, Oda T, Kohno I: Relationship between peritoneal washing cytology through implantable port system (IPS-cytology) and second-look laparotomy in ovarian cancer patients with unmeasurable residual diseases. Gynecol Oncol 1998;70:231–235.
10.
Mulvany N: Cytohistologic correlation in malignant peritoneal washings: analysis of 75 malignant fluids. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1231–1239.
11.
Ravinsky E: Cytology of peritoneal washings in gynecologic patients: diagnostic criteria and pitfalls. Acta Cytol 1986;30:8–16.
12.
Yoshimura S, Scully RE, Taft PD, Herrington JB: Peritoneal fluid cytology in patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1984;17:161–167.
13.
Rubin SC, Dulaney ED, Markman M, Hoskins WJ, Saigo PE, Lewis JL: Peritoneal cytology as an indicator of disease in patients with residual ovarian carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:851–853.
14.
Mottolese M, Salzano M, Vincenzoni C, Benevolo M, Bigotti A, Iacovelli A, Lombardi A, Atlante G, Natali PG: The use of a panel of monoclonal antibodies can lower false-negative diagnoses of peritoneal washings in ovarian tumors. Cancer 1991;68:1803–1807.
15.
Pretorius RG, Lee KR, Papillo J, Baker S, Belinson J: False-negative peritoneal cytology in metastatic ovarian carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1986;618:619–623.
16.
Cheng L, Wolf NG, Rose PG, Rodriguez M, Abdul-Karim FW: Peritoneal washing cytology of ovarian tumors of low malignant potential: correlation with surface ovarian involvement and peritoneal implants. Acta Cytol 1998;42:1091–1094.
17.
Ziselman EM, Harkavy SE, Hogan M, West W, Atkinson B: Peritoneal washing cytology: uses and diagnostic criteria in gynecologic neoplasms. Acta Cytol 1984;28:105–110.
18.
Prat J: Serous borderline tumors of the ovary. Adv Clin Path 1997;1:97–102.
19.
Mathew S, Erozan YS: Significance of peritoneal washings in gynecologic oncology: the experience with 901 intraoperative washings at an academic medical center. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:604–606.
20.
Valente PT, Schantz HD, Edmonds PR, Hanjani P: Peritoneal cytology of uncommon ovarian tumors. Diagn Cytopathol 1992;8:98–106.
21.
Zuna RE, Mitchell ML, Mulick KA, Weijchert WM: Cytohistologic correlation of peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic disease. Acta Cytol 1989;33:327–336.
22.
Lowe E, McKenna H: Peritoneal washing cytology: a retrospective analysis of 175 gynaecological patients. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;29:55–61.
23.
Cefis F, Forni A, Carinelli S, Cangini L: Significance of ascitic fluid and peritoneal washing cytology in ovarian tumor diagnosis. Tumori 1978;64:77–88.
24.
Morton DG, Moore JG, Chang N: The clinical value of peritoneal lavage for cytologic examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1961;81:1115–1125.
25.
Walts AE: Optimization of the peritoneal lavage. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:265–269.
26.
Covell JL, Carry JB, Feldman PS: Peritoneal washings in ovarian tumors: potential sources of error in cytologic diagnosis. Acta Cytol 1985;29:310–316.
27.
Zuna RE, Mitchell ML: Cytologic findings in peritoneal washings associated with benign gynecologic disease. Acta Cytol 1988;32:139–147.
28.
Selvaggi SM: Diagnostic pitfalls of peritoneal washing cytology and the role of cell blocks in their diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:335–341.
29.
Johnson TL, Kumar NB, Hopkins M, Hughes JD: Cytologic features of ovarian tumors of low malignant potential in peritoneal fluids. Acta Cytol 1988;32:513–518.
30.
Barnhill DR, O’Connor DM: Management of ovarian neoplasms of low malignant potential. Oncology (Williston Park) 1991;5:21–26; discussion 26, 28, 31–32.
31.
Burks RT, Sherman ME, Kurman RJ: Micropapillary serous carcinoma of the ovary: a distinctive low-grade carcinoma related to serous borderline tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:1319–1330.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.