This case demonstrated the importance of recognition of melanin pigments in pleural effusion as a diagnostic tool for metastasis of malignant melanoma.

Pleural effusions are a common medical problem not only for pulmonologists but also for general physicians, often needing thoracentesis for a definite diagnosis. However, thoracentesis cannot always reveal malignant cells or microbiological evidence.In this context, we prospectively enrolled a total of 289 patients with pleural effusions due to diverse etiologies: parapneumonic effusion (PPE) (63), empyema (22), tuberculous pleural effusion (TBPE) (54), malignant pleural effusion (MPE) (140), or chronic renal failure (CRF)/congestive heart failure (CHF) (10). The MPE group consisted of lung cancer (adenocarcinoma, n = 90; squamous cell carcinoma, n = 5; small cell carcinoma, n = 4), malignant lymphoma (n = 17), malignant mesothelioma (n = 11), malignant melanoma (n = 3), and metastasis from other organs (n = 10).This study demonstrated that the pleural lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)to adenosine deaminase (ADA) ratios differed significantly between patients with CHF/CRF, MPE, TBPE, empyema, and PPE. We discovered a simple method to differentiate pleural diseases based on the pleural LDH to ADA ratio and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). A pleural LDH to ADA ratio greater than 15.5 and a pleural CEA level of less than 5 ng/mL is indicative of PPE or empyema rather than TBPE, MPE, or transudative pleural effusion (CRF, CHF).This method has a sensitivity of 62.0%, a specificity of 91.0%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.765 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0678-0.852, P < .001), odds ratio of 16.6 (95% CI: 7.28-37.8, P < .001), a positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 6.8, and a negative LR of 0.02.

Background

Pleural separation, the "split pleura" sign, has been reported in patients with empyema. However, the diagnostic yield of the split pleura sign for complicated parapneumonic effusion (CPPE)/empyema and its utility for differentiating CPPE/empyema from parapneumonic effusion (PPE) remains unclear. This differentiation is important because CPPE/empyema patients need thoracic drainage. In this regard, the aim of this study was to develop a simple method to distinguish CPPE/empyema from PPE using computed tomography (CT) focusing on the split pleura sign, fluid attenuation values (HU: Hounsfield units), and amount of fluid collection measured on thoracic CT prior to diagnostic thoracentesis.

Methods

A total of 83 consecutive patients who underwent chest CT and were diagnosed with CPPE (n=18)/empyema (n=18) or PPE (n=47) based on the diagnostic thoracentesis were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

On univariate analysis, the split pleura sign (odds ratio (OR), 12.1; p<0.001), total amount of pleural effusion (≥30 mm) (OR, 6.13; p<0.001), HU value≥10 (OR, 5.94; p=0.001), and the presence of septum (OR, 6.43; p=0.018), atelectasis (OR, 6.83; p=0.002), or air (OR, 9.90; p=0.002) in pleural fluid were significantly higher in the CPPE/empyema group than in the PPE group. On multivariate analysis, only the split pleura sign (hazard ratio (HR), 6.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91-23.5; p=0.003) and total amount of pleural effusion (≥30 mm) on thoracic CT (HR, 7.48; 95%CI, 1.76-31.8; p=0.006) were risk factors for empyema. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the presence of both split pleura sign and total amount of pleural effusion (≥30 mm) on thoracic CT for CPPE/empyema were 79.4%, 80.9%, 75%, and 84.4%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.801 on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Conclusion

This study showed a high diagnostic yield of the split pleura sign and total amount of pleural fluid (≥30 mm) on thoracic CT that is useful and simple for discriminating between CPPE/empyema and PPE prior to diagnostic thoracentesis.