Differential diagnosis of tuberculous and malignant pleural effusions: comparison of the Th1/Th2 cytokine panel, tumor marker panel and chemistry panel

Abstract

The differentiation between tuberculous plural effusion (TPE) and malignant plural effusion (MPE) remains a major clinical challenge in the diagnosis and management of pleural effusions, especially in developing countries with a high incidence of tuberculosis. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of cytokines, tumor markers and biochemical markers in the differentiation of TPE and MPE. Two hundred and forty-two patients were included, of whom 134 were diagnosed with MPE and 108 were diagnosed with TPE. In total, 12 markers were tested in pleural effusion samples from all subjects: Interleukin-2 (IL-2), Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), Interferon (IFN)-γ, interleukins-4, 6, 10 (IL-4,6,10), cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron specific enolase (NSE), adenosine deaminase (ADA), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and high sensitivity C- reactive protein (Hs-CRP). The diagnostic value of each marker was evaluated and compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. In the 12 markers evaluated, TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-6, CYFRA 21-1, CEA, ADA and Hs-CRP were significantly different between the TPE and MPE groups, and the areas under the ROC curves were 0.624, 0.942, 0.619, 0.808, 0.903, 0.842 and 0.917, respectively. IFN-γ showed a better diagnostic performance than the other markers. With a cut-off value of >2.45 pg/mL, the sensitivity and specificity of IFN-γ were 91.11 and 91.94%, respectively. TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-6, CYFRA 21-1, CEA, ADA and Hs-CRP were useful in the differentiation between the TPE and MPE groups. IFN-γ showed a better diagnostic performance than the multitude of other markers evaluated in this study, which is satisfactory for the discrimination of TPE and MPE.

Keywords:

• Pleural effusion
• differentiation
• IFN-γ
• adenosine deaminase
• tuberculosis

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff of the Department of Laboratory Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University for collecting data and effusion samples.

Authors’ contributions

YC was responsible for the statistical analysis and manuscript preparation. JZ was responsible for the study design and manuscript revision. GH and XJ were responsible for the experiment and data collection. JO was responsible for the study design and critically reviewed the manuscript. PC was responsible for the statistical analysis and manuscript review.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.