Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 8/2017

01-08-2017 | Original Article

The value of the new scoring system for predicting neoplastic pericarditis in the patients with large pericardial effusion

Authors: M. Szturmowicz, A. Pawlak-Cieślik, A. Fijałkowska, J. Gątarek, A. Skoczylas, M. Dybowska, K. Błasińska-Przerwa, R. Langfort, W. Tomkowski

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Early recognition of neoplastic pericarditis (npe) is crucial for the planning of subsequent therapy. The aim of the present study was to construct the scoring system assessing the probability of npe, in the patients requiring pericardial fluid (pf) drainage due to large pericardial effusion.

Methods

One hundred forty-six patients, 74 males and 72 females, entered the study. Npe based on positive pf cytology and/or pericardial biopsy specimen was recognised in 66 patients, non-npe in 80. Original scoring system was constructed based on parameters with the highest diagnostic value: mediastinal lymphadenopathy on chest CT scan, increased concentration of tumour markers (cytokeratin 19 fragments—Cyfra 21-1 and carcinoembryonic antigen—CEA) in pf, bloody character of pf, signs of imminent cardiac tamponade on echocardiography and tachycardia exceeding 90 beats/min on ECG. Each parameter was scored with positive or negative points depending on the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV).

Results

The area under curve (AUC) for the scoring system was 0.926 (95%CI 0.852–0.963) and it was higher than AUC for Cyfra 21-1 0.789 (95%CI 0.684–0.893) or CEA 0.758 (95%CI 0.652–0.864). The score optimally discriminating between npe and non-npe was 0 points (sensitivity 0.84, specificity 0.91, PPV 0.9, NPV 0.85).

Conclusion

Despite chest CT and tumour marker evaluation in pericardial fluid were good discriminators between npe and non-npe, the applied scoring system further improved the predicting of neoplastic disease in the studied population.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Adler Y, Charron P, Imazio M et al (2015) 2015 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases. Eur Heart J 36:2921–2964CrossRefPubMed
2.
Maisch B, Ristic A, Pankuweit S (2010) Evaluation and management of pericardial effusion in patients with neoplastic disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 53:157–163CrossRefPubMed
3.
Orbach A, Schliamser JE, Flugelman MY, Zafrir B (2016) Contemporary evaluation of the causes of cardiac tamponade: acute and long-term outcomes. Cardiol J 23:57–63CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sanchez-Enrique C, Nunez-Gil IJ, Viana-Tejedor A et al (2016) Cause and long-term outcome of cardiac tamponade. Am J Cardiol 117:664–669CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kim SH, Kwak MH, Park S et al (2010) Clinical characteristics of malignant pericardial effusion associated with recurrence and survival. Cancer Res Treat 42:210–216CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Rafique AM, Patel N, Biner S et al (2011) Frequency of recurrence of pericardial tamponade in patients with extended versus non-extended pericardial catheter drainage. Am J Cardiol 108:1820–1825CrossRefPubMed
7.
Numico G, Cristofano A, Occelli M et al (2016) Prolonged drainage and intrapericardial bleomycin administration for cardiac tamponade secondary to cancer-related pericardial effusion. Medicine(Baltimore) 95:e3273
8.
Lestuzzi C, Bearz A, Lafaras C et al (2011) Neoplastic pericardial disease in lung cancer: impact on outcomes of different treatment strategies. A multicenter study. Lung Cancer 72:340–347CrossRefPubMed
9.
Tomkowski W, Wiśniewska J, Szturmowicz M et al (2004) Evaluation of intrapericardial cisplatin administration in cases with recurrent malignant pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade. Supp Care Cancer 12:53–57CrossRef
10.
Maisch B, Ristic AD, Pankuweit S et al (2002) Neoplastic pericardial effusion: efficacy and safety of intrapericardial treatment with cisplatin. Eur Heart J 23:1625–1631CrossRefPubMed
11.
Burazor I, Imazio M, Markel G, Adler Y (2013) Malignant pericardial effusion. Cardiology 124:224–232CrossRefPubMed
12.
Li BT, Pearson A, Pavlakis N et al (2014) Malignant cardiac tamponade from non-small cell lung cancer: case series from the era of molecular targeted therapy. J Clin Med 4:75–84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Pawlak-Cieślik A, Szturmowicz M, Fijałkowska A et al (2012) Diagnosis of malignant pericarditis: a single centre experience. Kardiol Pol 70:1147–1153PubMed
14.
El Haddad D, Iliescu C, Yusuf SW et al (2015) Outcomes of cancer patients undergoing percutaneous pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion. JACC 66:1119–1128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Ristic AD, Imazio M, Adler Y et al (2014) Triage strategy for urgent management of cardiac tamponade: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J 35:2279–2284CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sun JS, Park KL, Kang DK (2010) CT findings in patients with pericardial effusion: differentiation of malignant and benign disease. AJR 194:489–494CrossRef
17.
Maggiolini S, De Carlini CC, Ferri LA et al (2016) The role of early contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography in the aetiological diagnosis of patients presenting with cardiac tamponade or large pericardial effusion. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17:421–428CrossRefPubMed
18.
Paganuzzi M, Onetto M, Marroni P et al (2001) Diagnostic value of Cyfra 21-1 tumour marker and CEA in pleural effusion due to mesothelioma. Chest 119:1138–1142CrossRefPubMed
19.
Szturmowicz M, Tomkowski W, Fijałkowska A et al (2005) Diagnostic utility of Cyfra 21-1 and CEA assays in pericardial fluid for the recognition of neoplastic pericarditis. Int J Biol Markers 20:43–49CrossRef
20.
Koh KK, Kim EJ, Cho CH et al (1994) Adenosine deaminase and carcinoembryonic antigen in pericardial effusion diagnosis, especially in suspected tuberculous pericarditis. Circulation 89:2728–2735CrossRefPubMed
21.
Karatolios K, Pankuweit S, Maish B (2013) Diagnostic value of biochemical markers in malignant and non-malignant pericardial effusion. Heart Fail Rev 18:337–344CrossRefPubMed
22.
Antonangelo L, Sales RK, Cora AP et al (2015) Pleural fluid tumour markers in malignant pleural effusion with inconclusive cytologic results. Current Oncol 22:e336CrossRef
23.
Hsieh TC, Huang WW, Lai CL et al (2013) Diagnostic value of tumor markers in lung adenocarcinoma-associated cytologically negative pleural effusions. Cancer Cytopathol 121:483–488CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The value of the new scoring system for predicting neoplastic pericarditis in the patients with large pericardial effusion
Authors
M. Szturmowicz
A. Pawlak-Cieślik
A. Fijałkowska
J. Gątarek
A. Skoczylas
M. Dybowska
K. Błasińska-Przerwa
R. Langfort
W. Tomkowski
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3645-4

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

Supportive Care in Cancer 8/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Early palliative care: current status of integration within German comprehensive cancer centers

Review Article

Women’s expectations of breast reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer: a systematic review

Original Article

The use of a patient-reported outcome questionnaire to assess cancer survivorship concerns and psychosocial outcomes among recent survivors

Original Article

The self-care practices of family caregivers of persons with poor prognosis cancer: differences by varying levels of caregiver well-being and preparedness

Original Article

A cost-utility analysis of risk model-guided versus physician’s choice antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a net benefit regression approach

Original Article

Immediate effects of active exercise with compression therapy on lower-limb lymphedema
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits