Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass: correlation with pathological outcome

Modification of cut-off values for HE4, CA125 and the ROMA algorithm for early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer detection: Results from 1021 cases in South China

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in early stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) detection in patients in southern China. Additionally, this study proposes a possible ideal cut-off value for each marker to its own population in South China.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Serum HE4 and CA125 were measured in 756 patients with pelvic masses (275 malignancies, 53 borderline tumors and 428 benign diseases), and their ROMA values were calculated. Areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) were assessed for HE4, CA125, ROMA and combinations of these biomarkers.

RESULTS

Both HE4 and ROMA performed better diagnostically than CA125 alone for early stage EOC, with AUCs ranging from 0.714 for HE4, 0.699 for ROMA, and 0.463 for CA125 in premenopausal subjects, and 0.902 for ROMA, 0.880 for HE4, and 0.256 for CA125 in postmenopausal subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

HE4 and ROMA alone were found to be better than CA125 for detecting borderline tumors and early-stage EOC. The optimal cut-off values (HE4: 70pmol/l for all; CA125: 60U/ml for pre- and 35U/ml for postmenopausal women) could notably improve diagnostic performance in EOC detection in patients in southern China.

The role of human epididymis protein 4 in the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

Epithelial ovarian cancer is one of the most lethal female genital tract cancers. Early diagnosis of EOC would benefit the patients a lot. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) has been regarded as a new powerful biomarker in diagnosis of EOC; we hope to obtain system knowledge of HE4 and understand the role of HE4 in diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Medline, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for articles that included HE4's origin, characteristics, detection methods, clinical efficacy alone or combined with CA125, the risk of malignancy index, and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm. The diagnostic performance for the EOC and the role in the recurrence and procession in EOC were also discussed.

RESULTS

We got 83 most related articles and found that there were significantly difference existing among the studies, such as the clinical characteristics of patients, the methodology for measuring HE4, the different cut-offs for HE4 and so on.

CONCLUSION

HE4 is a promising biomarker for the early diagnosis of EOC. However, each lab should establish its own reference internal of HE4.

HE4, CA125, the Risk of Malignancy Algorithm and the Risk of Malignancy Index and complex pelvic masses - a prospective comparison in the pre-operative evaluation of pelvic masses in an Australian population

BACKGROUND

Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) has been proposed as a novel biomarker for the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Using HE4 and CA125, the risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) has been shown to be effective in the stratification of epithelial ovarian cancer risk.

AIMS

To determine the effectiveness of HE4 and ROMA in the diagnosis of malignancy of women presenting with a complex pelvic mass in an Australian population and to compare it with CA125 and the risk of malignancy index (RMI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective recruitment of women was conducted between October 2012 and March 2014 (n = 50). CA125 and HE4 serum concentrations were collected and stored for subsequent analysis. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for HE4, CA125, ROMA and the RMI. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curves (AUC) were also calculated for comparison.

RESULTS

There was a higher HE4 level in women with ovarian cancer compared with women with benign pathology (P = 0.008), and this observation was seen in benign versus stage 1 ovarian cancer women (P = 0.025). HE4 had a better specificity than CA125 for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in all women (P = 0.022), and this effect was also observed in premenopausal women (P = 0.012). Furthermore, the ROC-AUC for HE4 was superior than CA125 in all women (P = 0.0451). The ROMA algorithm was not inferior to the RMI calculation in this population.

CONCLUSIONS

In an Australian population, HE4 and ROMA are useful in the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer.

A novel diagnostic index combining HE4, CA125 and age may improve triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer - An international multicenter study in women with an ovarian mass

AIM

To develop and validate a biomarker-based index to optimize referral and diagnosis of patients with suspected ovarian cancer. Furthermore, to compare this new index with the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A training study, consisting of patients with benign ovarian disease (n=809) and ovarian cancer (n=246), was used to develop the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) utilizing the variables serum HE4, serum CA125 and patient age. Eight international studies provided the validation population; comprising 1060 patients with benign ovarian masses and 550 patients with ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

Overall, 2665 patients were included. CPH-I was highly significant in discriminating benign from malignant ovarian disease. At the defined cut-off of 0.070 for CPH-I the sensitivity and specificity were 95.0% and 78.4% respectively in the training cohort and 82.0% and 88.4% in the validation cohort. Comparison of CPH-I, ROMA and RMI demonstrated area-under-curve (AUC) at 0.960, 0.954 and 0.959 respectively in the training study and 0.951, 0.953 and 0.935 respectively in the validation study. Using a sensitivity of 95.0%, the specificities for CPH-I, ROMA and RMI in the training cohort were 78.4%, 71.7% and 81.5% respectively, and in the validation cohort 67.3%, 70.7% and 69.5% respectively.

CONCLUSION

All three indices perform well at the clinically relevant sensitivity of 95%, but CPH-I, unlike RMI and ROMA, is independent of ultrasound and menopausal status, and may provide a simple index to optimize referral of women with suspected ovarian cancer.

M-CSF in a new biomarker panel with HE4 and CA 125 in the diagnostics of epithelial ovarian cancer patients

BACKGROUND

We investigated plasma levels of M-CSF and conventional tumor markers (HE4 and CA 125) in epithelial ovarian cancer patients as compared to control groups: benign ovarian tumor patients (cysts) and healthy subjects.

METHODS

M-CSF levels were determined by ELISA, HE4 and CA 125 levels - by CMIA method.

RESULTS

Our results have demonstrated significant differences in the concentration levels of M-CSF, CA 125 and HE4 between the groups of ovarian cancer patients, cysts patients and the healthy controls. In the groups tested M-CSF demonstrated equal to or higher values than both CA 125 and HE4 in diagnostic sensitivity (SE), positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), and in the area under the ROC curve (AUC), particularly in the group with the serous epithelial sub-type of OC. Moreover, CA 125 showed better results of the aforementioned diagnostic criteria than HE4. The combined use of the parameters studied resulted in a further, significant increase in the value of the diagnostic indicators and in the value of the diagnostic power (AUC), especially in the early stages of ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest a high usefulness of M-CSF in diagnosing the serous sub-type of epithelial ovarian cancer and in discriminating between cancer and non-carcinoma lesions, particularly in new diagnostic panels in combination with CA 125 and HE4 for the detection of EOC in the early stages.

Usefulness of diagnostic indices comprising clinical, sonographic, and biomarker data for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses

The objective of this study was to review the accuracy of indices combining several diagnostic variables, in comparison to other models, sonography alone, and biomarker assays, for predicting benign or malignant ovarian lesions. Different single modalities were reviewed. The most useful complex models were International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) sonographic logistic regression model 2 (area under the curve, 0.949), risk of malignancy index-cancer antigen 125-human epididymis protein 4 (0.950), risk of malignancy algorithm (0.953), pelvic mass score (0.960), non-IOTA logistic regression model (0.970), and histoscanning score logistic regression model (0.970). None of the indices was superior to an expert subjective sonographic assessment (0.968). For women with adnexal tumors, indices with high accuracy are available that are applicable in clinical practice and comparable to an expert subjective sonographic assessment for discriminating benign from malignant masses.

Borderline ovarian tumors and diagnostic dilemma of intraoperative diagnosis: could preoperative He4 assay and ROMA score assessment increase the frozen section accuracy? A multicenter case-control study

The aim of our study was to assess the value of a preoperative He4-serum-assay and ROMA-score assessment in improving the accuracy of frozen section histology in the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors (BOT). 113 women presenting with a unilateral ovarian mass diagnosed as serous/mucinous BOT at frozen-section-histology (FS) and/or confirmed on final pathology were recruited. Pathologists were informed of the results of preoperative clinical/instrumental assessment of all patients. For Group_A patients, additional information regarding He4, CA125, and ROMA score was available (in Group_B only CA125 was known). The comparison between Group A and Group B in terms of FS accuracy, demonstrated a consensual diagnosis in 62.8% versus 58.6% (P: n.s.), underdiagnosis in 25.6% versus 41.4% (P < 0.05), and overdiagnosis in 11.6% versus 0% (P < 0.01). Low FS diagnostic accuracy was associated with menopausal status (OR: 2.13), laparoscopic approach (OR: 2.18), mucinous histotype (OR: 2.23), low grading (OR: 1.30), and FIGO stage I (OR: 2.53). Ultrasound detection of papillae (OR: 0.29), septa (OR: 0.39), atypical vascularization (OR: 0.34), serum He4 assay (OR: 0.39), and ROMA score assessment (OR: 0.44) decreased the probability of underdiagnosis. A combined preoperative assessment through serum markers and ultrasonographic features may potentially reduce the risk of underdiagnosis of BOTs on FS while likely increasing the concomitant incidence of false-positive events.

Evaluation of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) as diagnostic tools of type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancer in Japanese women

Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) levels and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) have recently been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) diagnosis. We evaluated HE4 levels and ROMA as diagnostic tools of type I and type II EOC in Japanese women. Women who had a pelvic mass on imaging and were scheduled to undergo surgery were enrolled as ovarian mass patients. Serum levels of carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and HE4 were tested in 319 women (131 benign, 19 borderline, 75 malignant, and 94 healthy controls). CA125, HE4, and ROMA were evaluated for sensitivity and by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) in type I and type II EOC. The results showed that, at 75% specificity, the sensitivity of CA125 and HE4 for type II was 92.1% for both markers and for type I was 51.5% and 78.8%, respectively. The sensitivities of ROMA (type I, 84.8% and type II, 97.4%) were better than those of CA125 and HE4. CA125, HE4, and ROMA were all highly accurate markers for type II. For type I, HE4 and ROMA showed better sensitivity than CA125. ROMA displayed the best diagnostic power for type I and type II including for the early stage of type I. In conclusion, HE4, CA125, and ROMA are valuable markers for type II EOC diagnosis. HE4 and ROMA analyses may improve differentiation between type I EOC and a benign mass. Measurement of combined HE4 and CA125 levels provides a more accurate method for EOC diagnosis.

In 2014, can we do better than CA125 in the early detection of ovarian cancer?

Ovarian cancer is a lethal gynecologic malignancy with greater than 70% of women presenting with advanced stage disease. Despite new treatments, long term outcomes have not significantly changed in the past 30 years with the five-year overall survival remaining between 20% and 40% for stage III and IV disease. In contrast patients with stage I disease have a greater than 90% five-year overall survival. Detection of ovarian cancer at an early stage would likely have significant impact on mortality rate. Screening biomarkers discovered at the bench have not translated to success in clinical trials. Existing screening modalities have not demonstrated survival benefit in completed prospective trials. Advances in high throughput screening are making it possible to evaluate the development of ovarian cancer in ways never before imagined. Data in the form of human “-omes” including the proteome, genome, metabolome, and transcriptome are now available in various packaged forms. With the correct pooling of resources including prospective collection of patient specimens, integration of high throughput screening, and use of molecular heterogeneity in biomarker discovery, we are poised to make progress in ovarian cancer screening. This review will summarize current biomarkers, imaging, and multimodality screening strategies in the context of emerging technologies.

Are serum HE4 or ROMA scores useful to experienced examiners for improving characterization of adnexal masses after transvaginal ultrasonography?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether serum human-epididymis protein-4 (HE4) levels or Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) scores are useful second-stage tests for tumors thought to be difficult to characterize as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings by experienced examiners, and to investigate whether adding information on serum HE4 levels or ROMA scores to ultrasound findings improves diagnostic performance.

METHODS

This was a prospective cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study conducted in a tertiary referral center that enrolled consecutive women with a known adnexal mass scheduled for surgery. Experienced level III examiners classified each mass as certainly or probably benign, difficult to classify, or probably or certainly malignant after preoperative ultrasound examination. Serum HE4 and CA 125 levels were measured before surgery.

RESULTS

The final database comprised 360 women, of whom 216 (60%) had benign and 144 (40%) had malignant disease. Examiners were highly confident in 196 cases (54%), moderately confident in 135 (38%) and completely uncertain about their diagnosis in 29 (8%) cases. With a sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 70%, subjective assessment outperformed HE4 and ROMA in the subgroup of difficult tumors. Both tests had low discriminatory capacity with poor areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.536 (95% CI, 0.302-0.771) and 0.565 (95% CI, 0.294-0.836), respectively. A strategy that incorporates sequential testing of serum HE4 or ROMA scores after transvaginal ultrasonography resulted in a deterioration in overall test performance.

CONCLUSION

Measurement of serum HE4 or calculating scores using the ROMA as secondary tests does not seem useful for classifying adnexal tumors after subjective assessment with transvaginal ultrasonography.

A rare case of peritoneal disseminated angiosarcoma 20 years after ovarian cancer diagnosis

Angiosarcoma is a rare form of sarcoma which may be either a primary tumor or it may result from previous irradiation because of another tumor. In this paper, we present a case of a female patient diagnosed as having peritoneal disseminated angiosarcoma 20 years after ovarian cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy). The case was very atypical because of an extremely rare peritoneal location and disseminated nature of the changes. Based on the initial histological picture, poorly differentiated cancer metastasis was diagnosed, suggesting a recurrence of the ovarian cancer that had been diagnosed earlier. The time elapsed from the ovarian cancer diagnosis, history of the previous irradiation and concentration of tumor markers were the only additional clinical data provided to the pathologists, which ultimately contributed to a correct diagnosis. The case we present herein shows and emphasizes the importance of proper communication between a clinician and a pathologist, which is a prerequisite for a correct diagnosis and, consequently, for proper treatment of patients. It also confirms the high specificity of the HE4 (human epididymis protein 4) marker in the monitoring of ovarian cancer, which was within normal limits in spite of peritoneal tumor dissemination.

Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Characterizing ovarian pathology is fundamental to optimizing management in both pre- and post-menopausal women. Inappropriate referral to oncology services can lead to unnecessary surgery or overly radical interventions compromising fertility in young women, whilst the consequences of failing to recognize cancer significantly impact on prognosis. By reflecting on recent developments of new diagnostic tests for preoperative identification of malignant disease in women with adnexal masses, we aimed to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS An extended search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (OvidSp) from March 2008 to October 2013. Eligible studies provided information on diagnostic test performance of models, designed to predict ovarian cancer in a preoperative setting, that contained at least two variables. Study selection and extraction of study characteristics, types of bias, and test performance was performed independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using a modified version of the QUADAS assessment tool. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was used to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals or plot summary ROC curves for all models considered. RESULTS Our extended search identified a total of 1542 new primary articles. In total, 195 studies were eligible for qualitative data synthesis, and 96 validation studies reporting on 19 different prediction models met the predefined criteria for quantitative data synthesis. These models were tested on 26 438 adnexal masses, including 7199 (27%) malignant and 19 239 (73%) benign masses. The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) was the most frequently validated model. The logistic regression model LR2 with a risk cut-off of 10% and Simple Rules (SR), both developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study, performed better than all other included models with a pooled sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.77-0.88] for LR2 and 0.93 [95% CI 0.89-0.95] and 0.81 [95% CI 0.76-0.85] for SR. A meta-analysis of centre-specific results stratified for menopausal status of two multicentre cohorts comparing LR2, SR and RMI-1 (using a cut-off of 200) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity in premenopausal women for LR2 of 0.85 [95% CI 0.75-0.91] and 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-0.96] compared with 0.93 [95% CI 0.84-0.97] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.73-0.90] for SR and 0.44 [95% CI 0.28-0.62] and 0.95 [95% CI 0.90-0.97] for RMI-1. In post-menopausal women, sensitivity and specificity of LR2, SR and RMI-1 were 0.94 [95% CI 0.89-0.97] and 0.70 [95% CI 0.62-0.77], 0.93 [95% CI 0.88-0.96] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.69-0.82], and 0.79 [95% CI 0.72-0.85] and 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94], respectively. CONCLUSIONS An evidence-based approach to the preoperative characterization of any adnexal mass should incorporate the use of IOTA Simple Rules or the LR2 model, particularly for women of reproductive age.

Biomarker testing for ovarian cancer: clinical utility of multiplex assays

The improved detection of ovarian cancer at the earliest stages of development would confer a significant benefit in the therapeutic efficacy and overall survival associated with this devastating disease. The inadequate performance of currently used imaging modalities and the CA 125 biomarker test have precluded the establishment of screening programs and hindered the development of diagnostic tests for ovarian cancer. Two recently completed large clinical trials of ovarian cancer screening have reported findings of mixed impact, further clouding the issue. Considerable effort has been applied to the development of multiplexed biomarker-based tests and the most recent advances are discussed here. Within the clinical setting of pelvic mass differential diagnosis and triage, several significant advancements have been achieved recently, including the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm and OVA1 tests. The development and evaluation of those tests are described in this review. Thus while effective routine screening for ovarian cancer remains a lofty goal, advancement within the clinical management of pelvic mass diagnoses appears to be near at hand.

[Ovarian tumor markers of presumed benign ovarian tumors]

Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125) and Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4) are the most studied ovarian tumor markers. Their diagnostic performance for identification of ovarian cancer are superior to CA19-9, CA72-4, and carcinoembryonic antigen, which are no more recommended for the diagnosis of presumed benign ovarian tumor. HE4 (>140 pmol/L) is superior to CA125 (>30 U/mL) in terms of specificity and positive likelihood ratio. CA125 and HE4 can be combined into an algorithm ROMA, or associated to clinical information (composite index), biological data (OVA1) or imaging (Risk for Malignancy Index (RMI), LR2). ROMA algorithm is an exponential equation combining plasmatic concentrations of HE4 and CA125. ROMA is more sensitive and less specific than HE4 in predicting epithelial ovarian cancer. ROMA is more accurate in post-menopausal women. The performance of ROMA is lower than the ultrasound model LR2 in differentiating malignant from benign ovarian tumors, whatever the hormonal status. The composite index combining CA125 with a symptoms index (pain, abdominal distension, bloating, difficulty eating) has a good sensitivity in a screening program, but because of a 12% false positive rate, ultrasound is required before management. The RMI algorithm is based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings (septation, solid zones, metastases, ascite, bilaterality) and menopausal status. RMI is less sensitive, but more specific than ROMA or OVA1 for the classification of ovarian masses. The addition of HE4 to RMI seems to be the most accurate. The subjective evaluation of ovarian cysts by sonography and color Doppler is better than ROMA and RMI algorithms, and not affected by the hormonal status.

Clinical value of serum human epididymis protein 4 assay in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) has been approved for diagnosing ovarian cancer. The goal of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical value of the serum HE4 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

Methods

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify suitable studies. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively) of HE4 for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer were commonly used as bivariates. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performances. Meta-Disc 1.4 software was used to analyze the data.

Results

A total of 6,269 patients from 31 trials were subjected to meta-analysis. The summary estimates of HE4 for ovarian cancer diagnosis were as follows: SEN 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.75); SPE 0.89 (95% CI 0.88–0.90); PLR 7.30 (95% CI 5.42–9.84); and NLR 0.15 (95% CI 0.10–0.23). SEN 0.74 (95% CI 0.72–0.76); SPE 0.89 (95% CI 0.88–0.90); PLR 7.35 (95% CI 5.55–9.73); NLR 0.14 (95% CI 0.09–0.21).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that the sensitivity and specificity of HE4 was higher than that of cancer antigen 125. The results indicated that HE4 could be a useful tumor marker for ovarian cancer diagnosis. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution, due to the heterogeneity among study designs. Further study should pay more attention to the possibility that HE4 can be a marker for monitoring recurrence of ovarian cancer.

The plasma concentration of VEGF, HE4 and CA125 as a new biomarkers panel in different stages and sub-types of epithelial ovarian tumors

Background

VEGF may play a role in the pathogenesis of cancer disease, for example in cell growth, proliferation and angiogenesis. In this study, we investigated plasma levels of this cytokine in comparison to plasma levels of a new biomarker - HE4 and the established tumor marker CA125 in ovarian cancer patients (100) as compared to control groups: patients with a benign ovarian tumor (80) and healthy subjects (50).

Methods

Plasma levels of VEGF were determined by ELISA, HE4 and CA125 by CMIA method.

Results

The results showed that levels of VEGF, CA125 and HE4 were significantly higher in ovarian cancer (OC) patients as compared to the both control groups. VEGF has demonstrated as high as comparative markers values of the diagnostic sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), the predictive values of positive and negative test results (PV-PR, PV-NR), and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) in early stages of cancer tested groups. The combined use of parameters studied resulted in the increase in the diagnostic criteria values and the AUC.

Conclusions

These findings suggest the usefulness of VEGF in the early diagnostics of ovarian cancer, especially in combination with CA125 and HE4, as a new biomarkers panel. Additionally, VEGF is the most useful tool in the diagnostics of locally advanced ovarian cancer without metastases. Investigated cytokine presented similar to HE4 usefulness in differentiation of OC according to its histopathlogical sub-type, and could be used especially in the diagnostics of endometrioid epithelial OC.