The aim of this study was to compare, prospectively, traditional pervaginal cul-de-sac aspiration cytology with an ultrasonographic-guided aspirate in the detection of residual or recurrent ovarian carcinoma.
Patients and methods: Fifty-one patients with ovarian carcinoma were monitored during chemotherapy (21 patients) or follow-up (30 patients) after first-line treatment. All patients underwent both traditional blind pervaginal cul-de-sac aspiration cytology and an ultrasonographic-guided pervaginal aspirate. The samples were classified as class 0 or insufficient when no mesothelial cells were detected in the aspirate. The results of cytological classification of the aspirates were compared with each other according to sampling order.
Results: Samples were classified as class 0 in 56% when the traditional cul-de-sac aspiration was taken first, and in 73% when ultrasonographic-guided aspiration was taken first (p = 0.249, Fisher's exact test). The number of class 0 samples was smaller among those taken second than among those taken first (22 (44%) vs. 33 (65%), p = 0.046). Four recurrences were detected during the mean follow-up of six months (range 2-11 months) in 30 patients who were followed-up after the first-line treatment. In one case, a positive cul-de-sac cytology was the first and only early indication of recurrence.
Conclusion: The use of ultrasonography did not improve the accuracy of the cul-de-sac aspiration. The greater amount of fluid in the cul-de-sac during the second sampling might contribute to achieving a better result.