Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer

Minimizing false- negative results

Michael Glantz, Bernard F. Cole, Lisa K. Glantz, Janet Cobb, Pamela Mills, Andrew Lekos, Beverly C. Walters, Lawrence D. Recht

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

266 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Detection of malignant cells on cytologic examination of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is the diagnostic gold standard for leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. The absence of cells is a primary endpoint for most therapeutic trials. Unfortunately, false-negative results are common. Practical strategies are necessary to remedy this problem. METHODS. Four physician-dependent variables (CSF sample volume, site of CSF sampling, processing time, and frequency of CSF sampling) were identified, and their contributions to the false-negative rate of CSF cytology were evaluated prospectively in 39 patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Retrospective data were analyzed to estimate the importance of these variables in daily practice. RESULTS. False-negative CSF cytology results correlated with small CSF volume (P < 0.001), delayed processing (P < 0.001), not obtaining CSF from a site of symptomatic or radiographically demonstrated disease (P = 0.02), and sampling fewer than two times (P < 0.001). In 1 year, 97% of CSF specimens at the study institution were of inadequate volume; >25% were processed too slowly. CONCLUSIONS. False-negative CSF cytology results are common, but can be minimized by: 1) withdrawing at least 10.5 mL of CSF for cytologic analysis; 2) processing the CSF specimen immediately; 3) obtaining CSF from a site of known leptomeningeal disease; and 4) repeating this procedure once if the initial cytology is negative.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)733-739
Number of pages7
JournalCancer
Volume82
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 15 1998

Fingerprint

Cell Biology
Cerebrospinal Fluid
Neoplasms
Meningeal Carcinomatosis
Physicians

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Glantz, Michael ; Cole, Bernard F. ; Glantz, Lisa K. ; Cobb, Janet ; Mills, Pamela ; Lekos, Andrew ; Walters, Beverly C. ; Recht, Lawrence D. / Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer : Minimizing false- negative results. In: Cancer. 1998 ; Vol. 82, No. 4. pp. 733-739.
@article{0e18ff4bf5624ee0a2ff025936348031,
title = "Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer: Minimizing false- negative results",
abstract = "BACKGROUND. Detection of malignant cells on cytologic examination of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is the diagnostic gold standard for leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. The absence of cells is a primary endpoint for most therapeutic trials. Unfortunately, false-negative results are common. Practical strategies are necessary to remedy this problem. METHODS. Four physician-dependent variables (CSF sample volume, site of CSF sampling, processing time, and frequency of CSF sampling) were identified, and their contributions to the false-negative rate of CSF cytology were evaluated prospectively in 39 patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Retrospective data were analyzed to estimate the importance of these variables in daily practice. RESULTS. False-negative CSF cytology results correlated with small CSF volume (P < 0.001), delayed processing (P < 0.001), not obtaining CSF from a site of symptomatic or radiographically demonstrated disease (P = 0.02), and sampling fewer than two times (P < 0.001). In 1 year, 97{\%} of CSF specimens at the study institution were of inadequate volume; >25{\%} were processed too slowly. CONCLUSIONS. False-negative CSF cytology results are common, but can be minimized by: 1) withdrawing at least 10.5 mL of CSF for cytologic analysis; 2) processing the CSF specimen immediately; 3) obtaining CSF from a site of known leptomeningeal disease; and 4) repeating this procedure once if the initial cytology is negative.",
author = "Michael Glantz and Cole, {Bernard F.} and Glantz, {Lisa K.} and Janet Cobb and Pamela Mills and Andrew Lekos and Walters, {Beverly C.} and Recht, {Lawrence D.}",
year = "1998",
month = "2",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980215)82:4<733::AID-CNCR17>3.0.CO;2-Z",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "82",
pages = "733--739",
journal = "Cancer",
issn = "0008-543X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer : Minimizing false- negative results. / Glantz, Michael; Cole, Bernard F.; Glantz, Lisa K.; Cobb, Janet; Mills, Pamela; Lekos, Andrew; Walters, Beverly C.; Recht, Lawrence D.

In: Cancer, Vol. 82, No. 4, 15.02.1998, p. 733-739.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer

T2 - Minimizing false- negative results

AU - Glantz, Michael

AU - Cole, Bernard F.

AU - Glantz, Lisa K.

AU - Cobb, Janet

AU - Mills, Pamela

AU - Lekos, Andrew

AU - Walters, Beverly C.

AU - Recht, Lawrence D.

PY - 1998/2/15

Y1 - 1998/2/15

N2 - BACKGROUND. Detection of malignant cells on cytologic examination of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is the diagnostic gold standard for leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. The absence of cells is a primary endpoint for most therapeutic trials. Unfortunately, false-negative results are common. Practical strategies are necessary to remedy this problem. METHODS. Four physician-dependent variables (CSF sample volume, site of CSF sampling, processing time, and frequency of CSF sampling) were identified, and their contributions to the false-negative rate of CSF cytology were evaluated prospectively in 39 patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Retrospective data were analyzed to estimate the importance of these variables in daily practice. RESULTS. False-negative CSF cytology results correlated with small CSF volume (P < 0.001), delayed processing (P < 0.001), not obtaining CSF from a site of symptomatic or radiographically demonstrated disease (P = 0.02), and sampling fewer than two times (P < 0.001). In 1 year, 97% of CSF specimens at the study institution were of inadequate volume; >25% were processed too slowly. CONCLUSIONS. False-negative CSF cytology results are common, but can be minimized by: 1) withdrawing at least 10.5 mL of CSF for cytologic analysis; 2) processing the CSF specimen immediately; 3) obtaining CSF from a site of known leptomeningeal disease; and 4) repeating this procedure once if the initial cytology is negative.

AB - BACKGROUND. Detection of malignant cells on cytologic examination of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is the diagnostic gold standard for leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. The absence of cells is a primary endpoint for most therapeutic trials. Unfortunately, false-negative results are common. Practical strategies are necessary to remedy this problem. METHODS. Four physician-dependent variables (CSF sample volume, site of CSF sampling, processing time, and frequency of CSF sampling) were identified, and their contributions to the false-negative rate of CSF cytology were evaluated prospectively in 39 patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Retrospective data were analyzed to estimate the importance of these variables in daily practice. RESULTS. False-negative CSF cytology results correlated with small CSF volume (P < 0.001), delayed processing (P < 0.001), not obtaining CSF from a site of symptomatic or radiographically demonstrated disease (P = 0.02), and sampling fewer than two times (P < 0.001). In 1 year, 97% of CSF specimens at the study institution were of inadequate volume; >25% were processed too slowly. CONCLUSIONS. False-negative CSF cytology results are common, but can be minimized by: 1) withdrawing at least 10.5 mL of CSF for cytologic analysis; 2) processing the CSF specimen immediately; 3) obtaining CSF from a site of known leptomeningeal disease; and 4) repeating this procedure once if the initial cytology is negative.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032520178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032520178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980215)82:4<733::AID-CNCR17>3.0.CO;2-Z

DO - 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980215)82:4<733::AID-CNCR17>3.0.CO;2-Z

M3 - Article

VL - 82

SP - 733

EP - 739

JO - Cancer

JF - Cancer

SN - 0008-543X

IS - 4

ER -