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
© 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.