ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garcia-Pachon, E.
Right arrow Articles by Padilla-Navas, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Garcia-Pachon, E.
Right arrow Articles by Padilla-Navas, I.
Eur Respir J 2004; 23:653-654
Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2004

Diagnostic implications of telomerase activity in pleural effusions

E. Garcia-Pachon and I. Padilla-Navas

Section of Pneumology, Hospital General Universitario, Elche, Alicante, Spain

CORRESPONDENCE:

To the Editor:

In a recent issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Dikmen et al. 1 analysed the diagnostic efficacy of telomerase activity in pleural fluid for distinguishing between benign and malignant effusions. They found that the sensitivity and specificity of telomerase activity for diagnosing malignancy was 82 and 80%, respectively. With these data the authors concluded that telomerase activity is a highly sensitive diagnostic biomarker for malignancy and may be used as an adjunct to cytological findings in determining malignant pleural effusions. However, in our opinion, this affirmation can not be applied to clinical practice.

Sensitivity and specificity are important points in the study of the diagnostic value of a test. However, from a clinical point of view, other measures of diagnostic accuracy are of great interest 2, i.e. likelihood ratios and predictive values. Likelihood ratios are the likelihood that a given test result would be expected in a patient with the target disorder compared to the likelihood that the same result would be expected in a patient without the target disorder, and predictive values are the post-test probability 3, 4. We calculated these measures using the data reported by Dikmen et al. 1, and obtained positive and negative likelihood ratios of 4.1 and 0.22, respectively, which are of modest diagnostic interest 3, 4. The positive predictive value, in this case, represents the probability that a patient has a malignant pleural effusion if telomerase activity is detected in the pleural fluid. Although it obviously depends on pre-test probability, this predictive value is very low, especially when the prevalence (pre-test probability) is ~20–30%, as is usually observed in general hospitals (table 1Go) 5. These findings are similar to those obtained when using classical tumour markers 5.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1— Probability (positive predictive value) of malignant pleural effusion when telomerase activity is detected in pleural fluid

 
In our experience 6, the determination of C-reactive protein (CRP) in pleural exudates, which is an inexpensive test and easy to perform, would be of greater interest. A low CRP level (<20 mg·L–1) has a better positive likelihood ratio and positive predictive value for diagnosing malignancy than those of telomerase activity, with the additional advantage that a level >45 mg·L–1 virtually rules out this possibility.

In conclusion, we consider that the measurement of telomerase activity in pleural fluid adds little to the diagnostic work-up of a pleural effusion and should not be used as an adjunct finding in determining malignancy.

References

  1. Dikmen G, Dikmen E, Kara M, Sahin E, Dogan P, Ozdemir N. Diagnostic implications of telomerase activity in pleural effusions. Eur Respir J 2003;22:422–426.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Giard RW, Hermans J. The diagnostic information of tests for the detection of cancer: the usefulness of the likelihood ratio concept. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:2042–2048.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sacket DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994;271:703–707.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. McGee S. Simplifying likelihood ratios. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:646–649.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Garcia-Pachon E. Tumor markers for diagnosing malignant pleural effusion?. Chest 2002;121:302.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Garcia-Pachon E, Llorca I. Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein in exudative pleural effusions. Eur J Intern Med 2002;13:246–249.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garcia-Pachon, E.
Right arrow Articles by Padilla-Navas, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Garcia-Pachon, E.
Right arrow Articles by Padilla-Navas, I.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS