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

Comparison of Human Epididymis Protein 4, Cancer Antigen 125, and Ultrasound Prediction Model in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses

Background

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of carcinogenic antigen (CA) 125, (HE)-4 (Human epididymis protein 4), and ultrasound (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis [IOTA]) Simple Rules individually and to derive a composite score in the differentiating ovarian cancer from benign ovarian mass.

Subjects and Methods

Consecutive patients (n = 100) with pelvic mass admitted during February 2018-August 2019 were included prospectively. Patients with either known case of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or metastatic EOC were excluded. The primary outcome was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of CA-125, HE-4, and IOTA Simple Rules in predicting benign from malignant mass independently, while secondary outcome was derivation of a new model incorporating these variables using multivariate logistic regression analysis to predict benign from malignant lesions. Receiver operator curve (ROC) was drawn to redefine the best-performing cutoff values and difference between area under the ROC (AUROC) were compared by DeLong's method.

Results

Out of 100 cases of adnexal mass selected, the sensitivity and specificity of CA-125 were 73.8% and 77.6%, HE-4 were 90.5% and 87.9%, and IOTA Simple Rules were 92.9% and 81.0%. CA-125, HE-4, and IOTA Simple Rules were independently associated with the likelihood of malignancy/borderline (P < 0.001). The area under the curve for the "composite score" (AUC = 0.93) was the highest and was significantly better than that of CA-125 (AUC = 0.786) (P = 0.004 using DeLong's test) and comparable with HE-4 (AUROC = 0.90; P = 0.128 using DeLong's Test).

Conclusion

The sensitivity and specificity of HE-4 and IOTA Simple Rules for predicting malignant ovarian tumor was better than those of CA-125. The diagnostic performance of "composite score" was comparable to those of either HE-4 or IOTA Simple Rules and significantly better than CA-125.

The role of urine and serum biomarkers in the early detection of ovarian epithelial tumours

Ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the leading causes of gynaecological cancer mortality in women worldwide. If detected at an early stage (I, II), OC has a 90% 5-year survival rate; nevertheless, symptoms are often hidden, leading to late-stage (III, IV) diagnosis and a poor prognosis. The current diagnostic procedures, such as a pelvic exam, transvaginal ultrasound, CA-125 blood tests, serum HE4 tests and multivariate index assays (MIA), are insufficient. Sadly, surgery is frequently required to confirm a positive diagnosis. Therefore, there has been an increased interest in different biomarkers using a non-invasive test as a tool for the earlier diagnosis of OC to resolve the need for precise and non-invasive diagnostic methods. This review article aims to investigate how biomarkers influence early OC detection and to emphasise the role of using a combination of serum biomarkers panel rather than a single biomarker. In addition, this review provides insights into the current serum biomarkers, urine biomarkers and other emerging biomarkers in the early detection of OC for better specificity and sensitivity and to improve the overall survival (OS) rate.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

Tissue factor pathway inhibitor 2: A potential diagnostic marker for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVES

Carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), CA19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) are widely used as tumor markers and algorithms for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC). Tissue factor pathway inhibitor 2 (TFPI2) has been developed as a potential serodiagnostic marker for OC in Japan. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the six markers alone and in combination to find the best marker for discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

METHODS

Frozen serum samples collected from 484 patients were divided into three groups based on histopathological results: OC (n = 119), borderline ovarian tumors (BR) (n = 48), and benign ovarian tumors (BN) (n = 317). Diagnostic accuracy was calculated with an area under a receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve.

RESULTS

TFPI2 achieved the highest discrimination between the OC + BR group versus the BN group (AUC 0.8076). ROMA values best discriminated patients with OC from those with BN (AUC, 0.8966), which was equivalent to TFPI2 (AUC, 0.8937). For discriminating the OC group from the BR + BN group, the highest AUC value was achieved by ROMA values (AUC, 0.8884), and TFPI2 also showed comparable diagnostic accuracy (AUC, 0.8845). Combining TFPI2 with ROMA had the highest AUC (0.8420-0.9357).

CONCLUSION

TFPI2 may be a clinically useful single marker comparable to conventional ROMA values for discriminating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

Ceramides are early responders in metabolic syndrome development in rhesus monkeys

Metabolic syndrome increases risk of complicating co-morbidities. Current clinical indicators reflect established metabolic impairment, preventing earlier intervention strategies. Here we show that circulating sphingolipids are altered in the very early stages of insulin resistance development. The study involved 16 paired overweight but healthy monkeys, one-half of which spontaneously developed metabolic syndrome over the course of 2 years. Importantly, animals did not differ in adiposity and were euglycemic throughout the study period. Using mass spectrometry, circulating sphingolipids, including ceramides and sphingomyelins, were detected and quantified for healthy and impaired animals at both time points. At time of diagnosis, several ceramides were significantly different between healthy and impaired animals. Correlation analysis revealed differences in the interactions among ceramides in impaired animals at diagnosis and pre-diagnosis when animals were clinically indistinguishable from controls. Furthermore, correlations between ceramides and early-stage markers of insulin resistance, diacylglycerols and non-esterified fatty acids, were distinct for healthy and impaired states. Regression analysis identifies coordinated changes in lipid handling across lipid classes as animals progress from healthy to insulin resistant. Correlations between ceramides and the adipose-derived adipokine adiponectin were apparent in healthy animals but not in the metabolically impaired animals, even in advance of loss in insulin sensitivity. These data suggest that circulating ceramides are clinically relevant in identifying disease risk independent of differences in adiposity, and may be important in devising preventative strategies.

A nomogram model based on clinical markers for predicting malignancy of ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to build a nomogram based on clinical markers for predicting the malignancy of ovarian tumors (OTs).

METHOD

A total of 1,268 patients diagnosed with OTs that were surgically removed between October 2017 and May 2019 were enrolled. Clinical markers such as post-menopausal status, body mass index (BMI), serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) value, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) value, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) index, course of disease, patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) score, ascites, and locations and features of masses were recorded and analyzed (p 0.05). Significant variables were further selected using multivariate logistic regression analysis and were included in the decision curve analysis (DCA) used to assess the value of the nomogram model for predicting OT malignancy.

RESULT

The significant variables included post-menopausal status, BMI, HE4 value, CA125 value, ROMA index, course of disease, PG-SGA score, ascites, and features and locations of masses (p 0.05). The ROMA index, BMI (≥ 26), unclear/blurred mass boundary (on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]/computed tomography [CT]), mass detection (on MRI/CT), and mass size and features (on type B ultrasound [BUS]) were screened out for multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the value of the nomogram model for predicting OT malignant risk (p 0.05). The DCA revealed that the net benefit of the nomogram's calculation model was superior to that of the CA125 value, HE4 value, and ROMA index for predicting OT malignancy.

CONCLUSION

We successfully tailored a nomogram model based on selected clinical markers which showed superior prognostic predictive accuracy compared with the use of the CA125, HE4, or ROMA index (that combines both HE and CA125 values) for predicting the malignancy of OT patients.

Modified HE4, CA125, and ROMA cut-off values and predicted probability of ovarian tumor in Chinese patients

BACKGROUND

Most prior studies investigating the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) with cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) have involved Caucasian population or other populations. To date, there have been no unique calculations of predicted probability (PP) risk specifically for Chinese populations to help physicians in primary care settings.

METHODS

A group of 534 women with ovarian tumor diagnoses were enrolled and serum HE4 and CA125 were measured in each individual. Modified cut-off values were obtained by maximizing area under the curve (AUC) values and adjusted by using logistic regression with corresponding sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), Youden index (YI), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

By utilizing the ideal PPV, NPV, and AUC values, in premenopausal women modified HE4, CA125, ROMA, and PP cut-off values were 73.87 pmol/L, 61.60 U/mL, 18.47%, and 0.168, respectively. The same test values for postmenopausal women were 120.90 pmol/L, 76.21 U/mL, 26.48%, and 0.485, respectively. The SN for HE4 with the modified cut-off value was significantly lower than that for CA125 (P=0.040) in premenopausal women and lower than that for ROMA (P=0.001) and PP (P=0.044) in postmenopausal women. The AUC values for CA125, ROMA, and PP were all significantly higher than that for HE4 (P=0.006, 0.007, and 0.002, respectively) in postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified cut-off values for HE4, CA125, ROMA, and PP with ideal SN, SP, YI, NPV, PPV were useful of ruling out ovarian malignancy among both pre- and post-menopausal women. In premenopausal women modified HE4, CA125, ROMA, and PP cut-off values were 73.87 pmol/L, 61.60 U/mL, 18.47%, and 0.168, respectively and in postmenopausal women were 120.90 pmol/L, 76.21 U/mL, 26.48%, and 0.485, respectively.

Diagnostic measures comparison for ovarian malignancy risk in Epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis

Epithelial ovarian cancer has become the most frequent cause of deaths among gynecologic malignancies. Our study elucidates the diagnostic performance of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) and cancer antigen (CA125). To compare the diagnostic accuracy of ROMA, HE-4 and CA125 in the early diagnosis and screening of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Literature search in electronic databases such as Medicine: MEDLINE (through PUBMED interface), EMBASE, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Cochrane library from January 2011 to August 2020. Studies that evaluated the diagnostic measures of ROMA, HE4 and CA125 by using Chemilumincence immunoassay or electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA or ECLIA) as index tests. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). We included 32 studies in our meta-analysis. We calculated AUC by SROC, pooled estimated like sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), Tau square, Cochran Q through random effect analysis and meta-regression. Data was retrieved from 32 studies. The number of studies included for HE4, CA125 and ROMA tests was 25, 26 and 22 respectively. The patients with EOC were taken as cases, and women with benign ovarian mass were taken as control, which was 2233/5682, 2315/5875 and 2281/5068 respectively for the markers or algorithm. The pooled estimates of the markers or algorithm were sensitivity: ROMA (postmenopausal) (0.88, 95% CI 0.86–0.89) > ROMA (premenopausal) 0.80, 95% CI 0.78–0.83 > CA-125(0.84, 95% CI 0.82–0.85) > HE4 (0.73, 95% CI 0.71–0.75) specificity: HE4 (0.90, 95% CI 0.89–0.91) > ROMA (postmenopausal) (0.83, 95% CI 0.81–0.84) > ROMA (premenopausal) (0.80, 95% CI 0.79–0.82) > CA125 (0.73, 95%CI 0.72–0.74), Diagnostic odd’s ratio ROMA (postmenopausal) 44.04, 95% CI 31.27–62.03, ROMA (premenopausal)-18.93, 95% CI 13.04–27.48, CA-125-13.44, 95% CI 9.97–18.13, HE4-41.03, 95% CI 27.96–60.21 AUC(SE): ROMA (postmenopausal) 0.94(0.01), ROMA (premenopausal)-0.88(0.01), HE4 0.91(0.01), CA125-0.86(0.02) through bivariate random effects model considering the heterogeneity. Our study found ROMA as the best marker to differentiate EOC from benign ovarian masses with greater diagnostic accuracy as compared to HE4 and CA125 in postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women, HE4 is a promising predictor of Epithelial ovarian cancer; however, its utilisation requires further exploration. Our study elucidates the diagnostic performance of ROMA, HE4 and CA125 in EOC. ROMA is a promising diagnostic marker of Epithelial ovarian cancers in postmenopausal women, while HE4 is the best diagnostic predictor of EOC in the premenopausal group. Our study had only EOC patients as cases and those with benign ovarian masses as controls. Further, we considered the studies estimated using the markers by the same index test: CLIA or ECLIA. The good number of studies with strict inclusion criteria reduced bias because of the pooling of studies with different analytical methods, especially for HE4. We did not consider the studies published in foreign languages. Since a few studies were available for HE4 and CA125 in the premenopausal and postmenopausal group separately, data were inadequate for sub-group analysis. Further, we did not assess these markers' diagnostic efficiency stratified by the stage and type of tumour due to insufficient studies.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers, and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

CA125 and Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

Simple Summary

CA125 has been the most promising biomarker for screening ovarian cancer; however, it still does not have an acceptable accuracy in population-based screening for ovarian cancer. In this review article, we have discussed the role of CA125 in diagnosis, evaluating response to treatment and prognosis of ovarian cancer and provided some suggestions in improving the clinical utility of this biomarker in the early diagnosis of aggressive ovarian cancers. These include using CA125 to screen individuals with symptoms who seek medical care rather than screening the general population, increasing the cutoff point for the CA125 level in the plasma and performing the test at point-of-care rather than laboratory testing. By these strategies, we would detect more aggressive ovarian cancer patients in stages that the tumour can be completely removed by surgery, which is the most important factor in redusing recurrence rate and improving the survival of the patients with ovarian cancer.

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the second most lethal gynecological malignancy. The tumour biomarker CA125 has been used as the primary ovarian cancer marker for the past four decades. The focus on diagnosing ovarian cancer in stages I and II using CA125 as a diagnostic biomarker has not improved patients’ survival. Therefore, screening average-risk asymptomatic women with CA125 is not recommended by any professional society. The dualistic model of ovarian cancer carcinogenesis suggests that type II tumours are responsible for the majority of ovarian cancer mortality. However, type II tumours are rarely diagnosed in stages I and II. The recent shift of focus to the diagnosis of low volume type II ovarian cancer in its early stages of evolution provides a new and valuable target for screening. Type II ovarian cancers are usually diagnosed in advanced stages and have significantly higher CA125 levels than type I tumours. The detection of low volume type II carcinomas in stage IIIa/b is associated with a higher likelihood for optimal cytoreduction, the most robust prognostic indicator for ovarian cancer patients. The diagnosis of type II ovarian cancer in the early substages of stage III with CA125 may be possible using a higher cutoff point rather than the traditionally used 35 U/mL through the use of point-of-care CA125 assays in primary care facilities. Rapid point-of-care testing also has the potential for effective longitudinal screening and quick monitoring of ovarian cancer patients during and after treatment. This review covers the role of CA125 in the diagnosis and management of ovarian cancer and explores novel and more effective screening strategies with CA125.

Ultrasound Features Improve Diagnostic Performance of Ovarian Cancer Predictors in Distinguishing Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors

To determine whether ultrasound features can improve the diagnostic performance of tumor markers in distinguishing ovarian tumors, we enrolled 719 patients diagnosed as having ovarian tumors at Nanfang Hospital from September 2014 to November 2016. Age, menopausal status, histopathology, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages, tumor biomarker levels, and detailed ultrasound reports of patients were collected. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the bellow-mentioned predictors were analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic curve. Of the 719 patients, 531 had benign lesions, 119 had epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC), 44 had borderline ovarian tumors (BOT), and 25 had non-EOC. AUCs and the sensitivity of cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis-specific protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI1), HE4 model, and Rajavithi-Ovarian Cancer Predictive Score (R-OPS) in the overall population were 0.792, 0.854, 0.856, 0.872, 0.893, 0.852, and 70.2%, 56.9%, 69.1%, 60.6%, 77.1%, 71.3%, respectively. For distinguishing EOC from benign tumors, the AUCs and sensitivity of the above mentioned predictors were 0.888, 0.946, 0.947, 0.949, 0.967, 0.966, and 84.0%, 79.8%, 87.4%, 84.9%, 90.8%, 89.1%, respectively. Their specificity in predicting benign diseases was 72.9%, 94.4%, 87.6%, 95.9%, 86.3%, 90.8%, respectively. Therefore, we consider biomarkers in combination with ultrasound features may improve the diagnostic performance in distinguishing malignant from benign ovarian tumors.

[Comparison of serum cancer antigen 125, human epididymis protein 4, ROMA, and CPH-I for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in Chinese patients with ovarian mass]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen index (CPH-I) for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases in patients with ovarian mass.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 719 women with pelvic mass, and the performance of preoperative serum levels of CA125 and HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for differential diagnosis of the masses was compared.

RESULTS

Of the 710 women analyzed, 531 were diagnosed with benign ovarian lesions, 44 with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs), 119 with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs), and 25 with non-EOCs. In differentiating ovarian cancer (OC) and BOT from benign lesions, the area under the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.854 for HE4, 0.856 for ROMA, 0.854 for CPH-I, and 0.792 for CA125, demonstrating better diagnostic performance of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I than CA125 alone; the diagnostic sensitivity was 56.9% for HE4, 70.2% for CA125, 69.1% for ROMA, and 63.8% for CPH-I; the specificity was the best with HE4 (94.4%) and CPH-I (94.7%). In sub-analysis of EOC vs benign lesions, the AUCs of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I increased to 0.946, 0.947, and 0.943, respectively, all greater than that of CA125 (0.888). In other sub-analyses, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I all showed greater AUCs than CA125 alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the accuracy of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I for differentiating malignant from benign ovarian mass, and all these 3 tests show better performance than CA125. Furthermore, HE4 and CPH-I is superior to ROMA and CA125 in terms of specificity, while CA125 and ROMA have better diagnostic sensitivities.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm in Clinical Practice at a Single Hospital in Korea

Background

The risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) is used for assessing ovarian cancer risk in women with a pelvic mass. Its diagnostic accuracy is variable. We investigated whether the clinically acceptable minimal sensitivity of >80.0% could be obtained with the suggested cutoff of 7.4%/25.3% for pre/postmenopausal women and with adjusted cutoffs set to a specificity of ≥75.0% or a sensitivity of 95.0%, in a hospital with a lower ovarian cancer (OC) prevalence than previously reported.

Methods

ROMA scores were calculated from measurements of human epididymis protein 4 and cancer antigen 125 in blood specimens from 443 patients with a pelvic mass. The ROMA-based risk group was compared against biopsy (N=309) or clinical follow-up with imaging (N=134) results. The ROMA sensitivity and specificity for predicting epithelial OC (EOC) and borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) were calculated for the suggested and adjusted cutoff values.

Results

When targeting BOT and EOC, the prevalence was 7.4% and sensitivity and specificity at the suggested cutoff were 63.6% and 90.7%, respectively. Sensitivity was 81.8% at the 4.65%/13.71% cutoff set to a specificity of 75.0%. When targeting only EOC, the prevalence was 4.1% and sensitivity and specificity at the suggested cutoff were 77.8% and 89.4%, respectively. Sensitivity was 88.9% at the 4.78%/14.35% cutoff set to a specificity of 75.0%.

Conclusions

The sensitivity of ROMA was lower than expected when using the suggested cutoff. When using the adjusted cutoff, its sensitivity reached 80.0%.

Diagnostic value of HE4 in ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and evaluate the overall diagnostic value of Serum Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4) in ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to collect articles in English that evaluated the diagnostic value of HE4 in patients with gynecological or pelvic masses. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the QUADAS-2 tool. A chart of literature quality was made using Revman 5.3 software. Finally, we built Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curves, Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (HSROC) models, a Deek's funnel figure as well as a meta-analysis of included studies using STATA12.0 and Meta-Disc1.4 software.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies from the published literature met all inclusion criteria for this analysis. Remarkably, no publication bias was found among the included studies. HE4 had a pooled sensitivity of 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77-85) and a pooled specificity of 91% (95% CI: 86-93,). Overall, the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) was 8.2, (95% CI: 5.60-12.00,) the negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.21 (95% CI: 0.17-0.26), the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 39 (95% CI: 25-62), the AUC of SROC was 0.91, and Cochrane-Q value was 86.02.

CONCLUSIONS

HE4 is a valuable marker in the clinical diagnosis of ovarian cancer with both high AUC and Cochrane-Q. More studies are needed to determine if HE4 in the range of 100 mmol/L ≤ cutoff≤150 mmol/L than 60 mmol/L＜cutoff＜100 mmol/L holds more diagnostic value.

Proofs for implementation of higher HE4 and ROMA index cut-off values in ovarian cancer preoperative stratification

This study aimed to identify and quantify the clinical significance of the HE4 and ROMA index in patients with an adnexal tumour. We recruited 159 women and the HE4 and CA125 were measured with an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay in the sera. We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Mann-Whitney's test and logistic regression to interpret the data. In the premenopausal group (n = 57), the ROC analysis (with cut-off: 86.1 pmol/L for HE4; 40.7 U/L for CA125 and 21.9% for ROMA) demonstrated the superior prognostic potential of those markers when the higher cut-offs used are compared to producers. The AUC for HE4/CA125/ROMA were 0.846/0.867/0.846, respectively. The HE4/ROMA showed 85.7% sensitivity and 94% specificity. In the postmenopausal group (n = 102), the ROC analysis cut-off values were: 99.8 pmol/L for HE4; 45.8 U/L for CA125 and 38.4% for ROMA. AUC for HE4/CA125/ROMA were 0.928/0.899/0.927, respectively. HE4 had an 86.1% sensitivity at 92.4% specificity, while ROMA showed an 88.9% sensitivity at a 90.9% specificity. Impact Statement What is already known on this subject? The incidence of ovarian cancer has been increasing, despite the improvement of diagnostic, operative and therapeutic procedures. As a part of the multiparametric approach, the HE4 and ROMA index improve the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CA125 in the detection of ovarian cancer. What the results of this study add? The evaluation of HE4 and ROMA efficacy in the preoperative stratification was made by logistic regression analysis. The better prognostic potential of ROMA index, in patients with present adnexal mass, was obtained using our higher cut-offs for the ROMA index (21.9% for premenopausal and 38.4% for postmenopausal) in comparison to the producer's (11.7% for premenopausal and 29.9% for postmenopausal). The HE4 and ROMA index had 14.29 +LR, 0.15 -LR, 67% PPV and 97.9% NPV in the premenopausal patients. In the postmenopausal group, the HE4 had 11.37 +LR, 0.15 -LR, 75.6% PPV and 92.4% NPV, the ROMA showed 9.78 +LR, 0.12 -LR, 91.2% PPV and 95.2% NPV. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Application of a higher cut-off for HE4/CA125/ROMA index can significantly reduce the percentage of FP and FN in the preoperative stratification of ovarian cancer and justify speculations about this subject in the future.

Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in UK women and can be difficult to diagnose, particularly in the early stages. Risk-scoring can help to guide referral to specialist centres.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of risk scores to guide referral decisions for women with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care.

METHODS

Twenty-one databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception to November 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. The meta-analysis using weighted averages and random-effects modelling was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The cost-effectiveness analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with different risk-scoring methods, and subsequent care pathways. Modelling comprised a decision tree and a Markov model. The decision tree was used to model short-term outcomes and the Markov model was used to estimate the long-term costs and QALYs associated with treatment and progression.

RESULTS

Fifty-one diagnostic cohort studies were included in the systematic review. The Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) score did not offer any advantage over the Risk of Malignancy Index 1 (RMI 1). Patients with borderline tumours or non-ovarian primaries appeared to account for disproportionately high numbers of false-negative, low-risk ROMA scores. (Confidential information has been removed.) To achieve similar levels of sensitivity to the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group's simple ultrasound rules, a very low RMI 1 decision threshold (25) would be needed; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the RMI 1 at this threshold were 94.9% (95% CI 91.5% to 97.2%) and 51.1% (95% CI 47.0% to 55.2%), respectively. In the base-case analysis, RMI 1 (threshold of 250) was the least effective [16.926 life-years (LYs), 13.820 QALYs] and the second cheapest (£5669). The IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules (inconclusive, assumed to be malignant) were the cheapest (£5667) and the second most effective [16.954 LYs, 13.841 QALYs], dominating RMI 1. The ADNEX model (threshold of 10%), costing £5699, was the most effective (16.957 LYs, 13.843 QALYs), and compared with the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules, resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £15,304 per QALY gained. At thresholds of up to £15,304 per QALY gained, the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules are cost-effective; the ADNEX model (threshold of 10%) is cost-effective for higher thresholds.

LIMITATIONS

Information on the downstream clinical consequences of risk-scoring was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ADNEX model and the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules may offer increased sensitivity relative to current practice (RMI 1); that is, more women with malignant tumours would be referred to a specialist multidisciplinary team, although more women with benign tumours would also be referred. The cost-effectiveness model supports prioritisation of sensitivity over specificity. Further research is needed on the clinical consequences of risk-scoring.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016053326.

FUNDING DETAILS

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Diagnostic performance of CA 125, HE4, and risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm for ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CA 125, HE4, and ROMA for ovarian cancer in Koreans and set optimal cutoffs.

METHOD

Serum levels of HE4 and CA 125 and the ROMA score were determined in 762 patients with benign gynecological disease and 70 with ovarian cancer. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to calculate the areas under the curve (AUC). CA 125, HE4, and ROMA exhibiting maximum Youden index were determined, respectively, as the optimal cutoffs, and sensitivity and specificity were evaluated by applying those cutoffs.

RESULTS

In benign diseases, CA 125 significantly increased in patients with uterine myoma, adenomyosis, endometrial pathology, or endometriosis, but HE4 only increased in patients with adenomyosis. For the diagnosis of ovarian cancer, the combination of CA 125, HE4, and age showed the highest AUC value of 0.892 in the premenopausal group, and ROMA demonstrated the best diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.935 in postmenopausal patients. When the optimal cutoff values for CA 125 and HE4 were applied, the sensitivities of CA 125, HE4, and ROMA in premenopausal women were all the same at 0.714, while the specificities were 0.841, 0.974, and 0.972, respectively. In the postmenopausal group, the sensitivities of these markers were 0.857, 0.804, and 0.929, and the specificities were 0.836, 0.887, and 0.800, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although all markers demonstrated good diagnostic performance, they varied depending on the pathologic types of benign diseases and ovarian cancer. For accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer, CA 125, HE4, and ROMA should be used complementarily.

Clinically inappropriate post hoc exclusion of study participants from test accuracy calculations: the ROMA score, an example from a recent NICE diagnostic assessment

OBJECTIVE

To explore how the definition of the target condition and post hoc exclusion of participants can limit the usefulness of diagnostic accuracy studies.

METHODS

We used data from a systematic review, conducted for a NICE diagnostic assessment of risk scores to inform secondary care decisions about specialist referral for women with suspected ovarian cancer, to explore how the definition of the target condition and post hoc exclusion of participants can limit the usefulness of diagnostic accuracy studies to inform clinical practice.

RESULTS

Fourteen of the studies evaluated the ROMA score, nine used Abbott ARCHITECT tumour marker assays, five used Roche Elecsys. The summary sensitivity estimate (Abbott ARCHITECT) was highest, 95.1% (95% CI: 92.4 to 97.1%), where analyses excluded participants with borderline tumours or malignancies other than epithelial ovarian cancer and lowest, 75.0% (95% CI: 60.4 to 86.4%), where all participants were included. Results were similar for Roche Elecsys tumour marker assays. Although the number of patients involved was small, data from studies that reported diagnostic accuracy for both the whole study population and with post hoc exclusion of those with borderline or non-epithelial malignancies suggested that patients with borderline or malignancies other than epithelial ovarian cancer accounts for between 50 and 85% of false-negative ROMA scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate the potential consequences of inappropriate population selection in diagnostic studies; women with non-epithelial ovarian cancers or non-ovarian primaries, and those borderline tumours may be disproportionately represented among those with false negative, 'low risk' ROMA scores. These observations highlight the importance of giving careful consideration to how the target condition has been defined when assessing whether the diagnostic accuracy estimates reported in clinical studies will translate into clinical utility in real-world settings.

Prognostic value of serum and tissue HE4 expression in ovarian cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 90 studies

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in women. Accumulating evidence showed an evolving role of HE4 in monitoring the progression and prognosis of OC but without a comprehensive analysis for prognosis and survival data. Areas covered: The present meta-analysis aims to explore the association of HE4 with survival and the clinicopathological features of OC patients. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for relevant studies regarding the role of both serum and tissue HE4 expression in ovarian cancer. Expert commentary: HE4 has been proposed as the most promising biomarker that may complement the CA125 expression and has been approved by the FDA in monitoring the follow-up and relapse of OC patients. Our results are in accordance with the most recent evidence suggesting its important role in the prognostic surveillance of OC and a better performance in the early prediction of OC recurrence than CA125.

Diagnostic value of urinary-to-serum human epididymis protein 4 ratio in ovarian cancer

Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is one of the best-known tumor markers for ovarian cancer (OC). Emerging evidence indicates that the evaluation of serum HE4 (S-HE4) levels may be problematic when patients have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Assaying urine for HE4 levels is non-invasive alternative for the diagnosis of OC. However, whether the combined detection of S- and urinary HE4 (U-HE4) levels distinguishes OC from CKD remains unknown. To investigate this issue, the present study recruited 31 female patients with OC, 38 female patients with CKD, and 36 healthy control (HC) females. Serum and urine samples were preoperatively collected for HE4 level detection. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to assess the diagnostic performance of S-HE4 level, U-HE4 level and the ratio of urinary-to-serum HE4 level (R-HE4). Data from the current study indicated that serum HE4 levels in the OC and CKD groups were significantly higher than that in the HC group. The U-HE4 level in the OC group was significantly higher than that in the CKD and HC groups. The highest R-HE4 was observed in the HC group, followed by the OC group, and the lowest R-HE4 was observed in the CKD group. ROC analysis demonstrated that the R-HE4 was useful in differentiating OC from CKD and HC. Based on the diagnostic interval of optimal cut-off values from 36.85 to 96.15, the sensitivity and specificity of R-HE4 in differentiating OC patients from non-OC patients were 82.6 and 85.4%, respectively. Thus, the combined detection of S- and U-HE4 levels facilitates the diagnosis of OC, and R-HE4 is an effective marker for differentiating OC from CKD.

Emerging diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

In spite of various treatment options currently available, ovarian cancer (OC) still remains a leading cause of death in women world-wide. Diagnosis at an early stage is one of the most important factors that determines survival. Current clinical diagnostic tools have, however, a limited efficacy in early OC detection. Therefore, there is a critical need for new (early) diagnostic biomarkers and tools. Through advances in genomic, proteomic and metabolomic techniques, several novel molecular OC biomarkers have recently been identified. These biomarkers are currently subject to validation. In addition, integration of genomic, proteomic and metabolomic data, in conjunction with epidemiologic and clinical data, is considered essential for obtaining useful results. Interesting recent work has already shown that specific diagnostic biomarkers, such as BRCA mutations, may have profound therapeutic implications. Here, we review the current state of OC research through literature and database searches, with a focus on various recently identified biomarkers via different technologies for the (early) diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of OC.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-biomarker panels accompanied by a meticulous determination of their sensitivity and specificity, as well their validation, using multivariate analyses will be critical for its clinical application, including early OC detection and tailor-made OC treatment.

Emerging diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

In spite of various treatment options currently available, ovarian cancer (OC) still remains a leading cause of death in women world-wide. Diagnosis at an early stage is one of the most important factors that determines survival. Current clinical diagnostic tools have, however, a limited efficacy in early OC detection. Therefore, there is a critical need for new (early) diagnostic biomarkers and tools. Through advances in genomic, proteomic and metabolomic techniques, several novel molecular OC biomarkers have recently been identified. These biomarkers are currently subject to validation. In addition, integration of genomic, proteomic and metabolomic data, in conjunction with epidemiologic and clinical data, is considered essential for obtaining useful results. Interesting recent work has already shown that specific diagnostic biomarkers, such as BRCA mutations, may have profound therapeutic implications. Here, we review the current state of OC research through literature and database searches, with a focus on various recently identified biomarkers via different technologies for the (early) diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of OC.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-biomarker panels accompanied by a meticulous determination of their sensitivity and specificity, as well their validation, using multivariate analyses will be critical for its clinical application, including early OC detection and tailor-made OC treatment.

Emerging diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

In spite of various treatment options currently available, ovarian cancer (OC) still remains a leading cause of death in women world-wide. Diagnosis at an early stage is one of the most important factors that determines survival. Current clinical diagnostic tools have, however, a limited efficacy in early OC detection. Therefore, there is a critical need for new (early) diagnostic biomarkers and tools. Through advances in genomic, proteomic and metabolomic techniques, several novel molecular OC biomarkers have recently been identified. These biomarkers are currently subject to validation. In addition, integration of genomic, proteomic and metabolomic data, in conjunction with epidemiologic and clinical data, is considered essential for obtaining useful results. Interesting recent work has already shown that specific diagnostic biomarkers, such as BRCA mutations, may have profound therapeutic implications. Here, we review the current state of OC research through literature and database searches, with a focus on various recently identified biomarkers via different technologies for the (early) diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of OC.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-biomarker panels accompanied by a meticulous determination of their sensitivity and specificity, as well their validation, using multivariate analyses will be critical for its clinical application, including early OC detection and tailor-made OC treatment.

Rapid quantitation of human epididymis protein 4 in human serum by amplified luminescent proximity homogeneous immunoassay (AlphaLISA)

A sensitive, rapid and homogeneous reaction measurement method for quantitation of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in human serum by amplified luminescent proximity homogeneous immunoassay (AlphaLISA) was described. Built on a sandwich-type immunoassay format, analytes in samples were captured by one biotinylated monoclonal antibody combining on the surface of streptavidin coated donor beads, and "sandwiched" by another monoclonal antibody coated on acceptor beads. The coefficient variations of the method were lower than 10%, and the recoveries were in the range of 90-110% for serum samples. A value of 0.88pmol/l was identified as the minimum detectable dose of the present method for HE4. Compared with the results from electrochemiluminescence immunoassay kit (Roche) in 170 serum samples, there was a satisfied correlation coefficient of 0.984. The present assay demonstrated high sensitivity, wider effective detection range and excellent reproducibility for quantitation of HE4 can be useful for early screening and prognosis evaluation of patients with ovarian cancer.

The Establishment of an HE4-CLIA Method and the Combined Analysis of HE4 and CA125 in Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

The human epididymal secretory protein 4 (HE4) is a novel, verified biomarker for the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Magnetic beads were coated with capture antibodies and were used with acridinium ester labeled detection antibodies in a sandwich-type immunoassay. The patient's HE4 serum levels were measured simultaneously with the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) kit we developed and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) kit from Roche (Mannheim, Germany). CA125 was also detected by time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay. The diagnostic value was analyzed.

RESULTS

The assay demonstrated a linear range from 2.5 to 2,000 pmol/l, with an analytical sensitivity of 2.5 pmol/l. The reproducibility, recovery, and specificity of the immunoassay were demonstrated to be acceptable. Compared with the ECLIA kit from Roche in 124 serum samples (40 patients with ovarian cancer, 35 patients with benign gynecological diseases, and 49 health controls), there is a satisfied correlation coefficient of 0.875. The area under the receiver-operating curve (ROC-AUC) was 0.903 (95% CI was 0.839-0.966, P < 0.001) for HE4, 0.787 (95% CI was 0.694-0.879, P < 0.001) for CA125, and 0.914 (95% CI was 0.866-0.962, P < 0.001) for combined analysis of HE4 and CA125.

CONCLUSIONS

A quantitative method (HE4-CLIA) for detecting HE4 in serum was successfully established. Preliminary clinical sample analysis showed HE4-CLIA has a certain clinical value in the screening and diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Moreover, in distinguishing benign from malignant ovarian lesions, HE4 has higher demonstrated accuracy than CA125.