Standard and optimal cut-off values of serum ca-125, HE4 and ROMA in preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer in Vietnam

Are ROMA and HE4 More Accurate than CA-125, in Predicting of Ovarian Epithelial Carcinoma?

Background

Evaluation of ovarian tumors based on tumor markers could have high clinical importance. In this study, we aimed to assess the predictive value of HE4 and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) compared to CA-125 in the Malignancy of ovarian epithelial masses.

Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study was performed in 2020-2021 including 203 patients. Serum HE4 and CA-125 levels were checked before surgery. According to the pathology report (benign, borderline, or malignant epithelial mass), the predictive values of the three markers were evaluated.

Results

About 146 cases were benign; 14 cases were borderline and 43 cases were malignant. Most patients (69.8%) in the malignant group were in stage 3. Significantly higher levels of all three markers (CA-125, HE4, and ROMA) were found in patients with malignant tumors compared to benign or borderline tumors (P < 0.001 for all). The sensitivity of CA-125 was the highest (90.7%) in pre- and post-menopausal patients but the specificity of HE4 and ROMA were higher than CA-125 (98.1% and 97.5%, respectively, versus 86.9% for CA-125). In post-menopausal patients, both sensitivities of HE4 and ROMA were 90.5% and the specificity and sensitivity of CA-125 were the highest (95.2% and 100%). In premenopausal patients, the sensitivity of ROMA (90.9%) and the specificity of HE4 (100%) were the highest.

Conclusions

HE4 and ROMA are not necessary for postmenopausal patients in low-resource areas and a check of serum CA-125 will be enough. The higher-cost, ROMA, and HE4 checks are recommended in premenopausal people because they are more sensitive.

Point-of-care testing: a disposable label-free electrochemical CA125 and HE4 immunosensors for early detection of ovarian cancer

Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymal secretory protein 4 (HE4) are critical biomarkers for ovarian cancer diagnosis and progression monitoring; therefore, sensitive determination of their levels in body fluids is crucial. In recent study, label-free CA125 and HE4 immunosensors were prepared using disposable screen-printed carbon electrodes modified with reduced graphene oxide, polythionine, and gold nanoparticles for the sensitive, fast, and practical determination of CA125 and HE4. Differential pulse voltammetry, square wave voltammetry, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy methods were used for the electrochemical determination of antigens in four different linear ranges (1-100 pg mL^- 1, 0.01-10 ng mL^- 1, 10-50 ng mL^- 1, and 50-500 ng mL^- 1). High sensitivity, low limit of detection, and limit of quantification were obtained for each linear range with a correlation coefficient above 0.99. The application stability of CA125 and HE4 immunosensors was determined as 60 days, and the storage stability was determined as 16 weeks. Immunosensors showed high selectivity in nine different antigen mixtures. The reusability of the immunosensors has been tested up to 9 cycles. The Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm score% values were calculated using the concentration of CA125 and HE4 in the blood serum and evaluated in terms of ovarian cancer risk. For the point-of-care testing, CA125 and HE4 levels at pg mL^- 1 concentration were measured in blood serum samples using the developed immunosensors and a hand-held electrochemical reader in approximately 20-30 s, and high recoveries were obtained. These disposable label-free immunosensors are user-friendly and can be used in point-of-care tests for rapid and practical detection of CA125 and HE4 with high selectivity, sensitivity, and repeatability.

A label-free dual immunosensor for the simultaneous electrochemical determination of CA125 and HE4 biomarkers for the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer

The blood levels of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymal secretory protein 4 (HE4) are measured in the diagnosis and progression monitoring of ovarian cancer (OC), and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) score% values are calculated for cancer risk assessment. For the first time, disposable dual screen-printed carbon electrodes modified with reduced graphene oxide, polythionine, and gold nanoparticles were used to fabricate label-free electrochemical dual CA125-HE4 immunosensors for the sensitive, fast, and practical simultaneous determination of CA125 and HE4. DPV and SWV methods were used to simultaneously determine antigens in two different linear ranges (1-100 pg mL^-1 and 1-50 ng mL^-1). High sensitivity, low LOD, and LOQ were obtained for two linear ranges with a correlation coefficient above 0.99. The application stability of the dual CA125-HE4 immunosensors was determined as 60 days, and the storage stability was determined as 16 weeks. The dual immunosensors exhibited high selectivity in eight different antigen mixtures. The reusability of the dual immunosensors has been tested up to 9 cycles. ROMA score% values for pre-menopausal and post-menopausal status were calculated using the concentration of CA125 and HE4 in the blood serum and assessing OC risk. The disposable dual immunosensors can be used in point-of-care tests for rapid and practical simultaneous determination of CA125 and HE4 with high selectivity, sensitivity, and repeatability.

Significantly elevated serum human epididymis protein-4 in chronic kidney disease patients without ovarian cancer: A large-scale retrospective study

BACKGROUNDS

Human epididymis protein-4 (HE-4) is a commonly used biomarker for diagnosing ovarian cancer. Elevated HE-4 has also been observed in various benign conditions including chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, generalizability and statistical power of previous studies have been limited by small sample sizes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study that included 80 pathologically confirmed ovarian cancer patients, 641 CKD patients, and 2661 healthy controls. Serum HE-4 and several renal function parameters were collected and compared between the three groups. Correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between HE-4 and renal function parameters. A receiver operating characteristic curve was established to evaluate its diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

CKD patients had the highest levels of HE-4, with a median of 193.00 pmol/L, while the median in ovarian cancer patients was 90.82 pmol/L. HE-4 levels also increased with CKD progression, and Spearman's rank correlation showed that HE-4 had a strong correlation with renal function parameters in CKD patients. Furthermore, HE-4 exhibited a satisfactory diagnostic performance in both differentiating CKD patients and controls as well as stage 2 CKD patients and controls.

CONCLUSION

HE-4 can be used as an alternative biomarker for diagnosing CKD as it is less affected by several preanalytical factors. Nevertheless, in clinical practice, elevated HE-4 requires taking both CKD and ovarian cancer into consideration.

A Multiple-Array SPRi Biosensor as a Tool for Detection of Gynecological-Oncological Diseases

Diagnostics based on the determination of biomarkers in body fluids will be more successful when several biomarkers are determined. A multiple-array SPRi biosensor for the simultaneous determination of CA125, HE4, CEA, IL-6 and aromatase has been developed. Five individual biosensors were placed on the same chip. Each of them consisted of a suitable antibody covalently immobilized onto a gold chip surface via a cysteamine linker by means of the NHS/EDC protocol. The biosensor for IL-6 works in the pg mL^-1 range, that for CA125 in the µg mL^-1 range, and the other three within the ng mL^-1 range; these are ranges suitable for the determination of biomarkers in real samples. The results obtained with the multiple-array biosensor are very similar to those obtained with a single biosensor. The applicability of the multiple biosensor was demonstrated using several examples of plasma from patients suffering from ovarian cancer and endometrial cyst. The average precision was 3.4% for the determination of CA125, 3.5% for HE4, 5.0% for CEA and IL-6, and 7.6% for aromatase. The simultaneous determination of several biomarkers may be an excellent tool for the screening of the population for earlier detection of diseases.

Through the Looking Glass: Updated Insights on Ovarian Cancer Diagnostics

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the deadliest gynaecological malignancy and the eighth most prevalent cancer in women, with an abysmal mortality rate of two million worldwide. The existence of multiple overlapping symptoms with other gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and gynaecological maladies often leads to late-stage diagnosis and extensive extra-ovarian metastasis. Due to the absence of any clear early-stage symptoms, current tools only aid in the diagnosis of advanced-stage patients, wherein the 5-year survival plummets further to less than 30%. Therefore, there is a dire need for the identification of novel approaches that not only allow early diagnosis of the disease but also have a greater prognostic value. Toward this, biomarkers provide a gamut of powerful and dynamic tools to allow the identification of a spectrum of different malignancies. Both serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) and human epididymis 4 (HE4) are currently being used in clinics not only for EOC but also peritoneal and GI tract cancers. Screening of multiple biomarkers is gradually emerging as a beneficial strategy for early-stage diagnosis, proving instrumental in administration of first-line chemotherapy. These novel biomarkers seem to exhibit an enhanced potential as a diagnostic tool. This review summarizes existing knowledge of the ever-growing field of biomarker identification along with potential future ones, especially for ovarian cancer.

ROMA Index Is an Effective Predictor for Advanced Endometrial Cancer before Surgery

There is a high rate of inconformity between clinical staging and surgical-pathologic staging in endometrial cancer. Many patients with advanced endometrial cancer are preoperatively understaged and thereby do not receive the optimal therapy. Here, we aimed to develop a predictive model or biomarker for preoperative diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer via multivariate logistic regression analysis. In this study, 259 eligible patients were included, and 195 patients were assigned to the training dataset and 64 patients to validation dataset. Age, menopause status, sterilization situation, parity, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, tumor size, and ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) index were included as predictive variables, and the binary outcome was advanced endometrial cancer or not. When the P value was set as less than 0.01 in forward stepwise regression, only ROMA index was retained. The odds ratio of being positive ROMA index was 15.531 times that of negative value. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.790 in the training dataset and 0.776 in the validation dataset. The decision curve analysis curve showed that the prediction by ROMA index added more net benefits for almost all threshold probabilities. Therefore, ROMA index is an effective predictor for advanced endometrial cancer before surgery. Since ROMA index is a standard, measurable, and reliable laboratory test, it can be used as a reference tool for gynecologists to design the appropriate therapeutic schedule for patients with high-stage endometrial cancer before surgery.

Diagnostic Models Combining Clinical Information, Ultrasound and Biochemical Markers for Ovarian Cancer: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a diagnostic challenge, with the majority diagnosed at late stages. Existing systematic reviews of diagnostic models either use inappropriate meta-analytic methods or do not conduct statistical comparisons of models or stratify test performance by menopausal status. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and SCI Science Citation Index, trials registers, conference proceedings from 1991 to June 2019. Cochrane collaboration review methods included QUADAS-2 quality assessment and meta-analysis using hierarchical modelling. RMI, ROMA or ADNEX at any test positivity threshold were investigated. Histology or clinical follow-up was the reference standard. We excluded screening studies, studies restricted to pregnancy, recurrent or metastatic OC. 2 × 2 diagnostic tables were extracted separately for pre- and post-menopausal women. Results: We included 58 studies (30,121 patients, 9061 cases of ovarian cancer). Prevalence of OC ranged from 16 to 55% in studies. For premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (+/−2) and ADNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at 200 (p < 0.0001) 77.8 (72.5, 82.4), 94.9 (92.5, 96.6), and 57.1% (50.6 to 63.4) but lower specificity (p < 0.002), 92.5 (90.0, 94.4), 84.3 (81.3, 86.8), and 78.2 (75.8, 80.4). For postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (+/−2) and AdNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at a threshold of 200 (p < 0.001) 90.4 (87.4, 92.7), 97.6 (96.2, 98.5), and 78.7 (74.3, 82.5), specificity of ROMA was comparable, whilst ADneX was lower, 85.5 (81.3, 88.9), 81.3 (76.9, 85.0) (p = 0.155), compared to RMI 55.2 (51.2, 59.1) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In pre-menopausal women, ROMA and ADNEX offer significantly higher sensitivity but significantly decreased specificity. In post-menopausal women, ROMA demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI I, ADNEX has the highest sensitivity of all models, but with significantly reduced specificity. RMI I has poor sensitivity compared to ROMA or ADNEX. Choice between ROMA and ADNEX as a replacement test will depend on cost effectiveness and resource implications.

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.

A Study to Evaluate Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in Patients with Ovarian Masses

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in premenopausal patients with ovarian masses.

Materials and Methods A mixed observational study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, from the month of June 2017 to March 2018. In this study, premenopausal females with ovarian masses, satisfying the inclusion criteria, were evaluated for the purpose of preoperative analysis.

Results In premenopausal females, ROMA less than 11.4% is normal and more than or equal to 1.4% is increased. Considering histopathology reports as the gold standard, significant association was present between ROMA score and premenopausal status.

Conclusion ROMA includes two recognized markers that are being used in the current scenario for the purpose of preoperative risk assessment of ovarian cancer, cancer antigen 125 (CA125), and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4). CA125 has been shown to be elevated in most ovarian cancer cells but has a low specificity for ovarian malignancies. HE4 is a recently developed biomarker that is elevated in ovarian cancers, as well as few other cancers, and has been shown to have higher specificity than CA125. Combining CA125 and HE4 provides a relatively more accurate prediction of malignancy than either test alone. ROMA culminates the benefits of the combined CA125 and HE4 biomarkers along with menopausal status to help assign a numeric risk stratification of malignancy in cases of ovarian tumors.

The Comparison of Three Predictive Indexes to Discriminate Malignant Ovarian Tumors from Benign Ovarian Endometrioma: The Characteristics and Efficacy

This study aimed to evaluate the prediction efficacy of malignant transformation of ovarian endometrioma (OE) using the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I), the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and the R2 predictive index. This retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Gynecology, Nara Medical University Hospital, from January 2008 to July 2021. A total of 171 patients were included in the study. In the current study, cases were divided into three cohorts: pre-menopausal, post-menopausal, and a combined cohort. Patients with benign ovarian tumor mainly received laparoscopic surgery, and patients with suspected malignant tumors underwent laparotomy. Information from a review chart of the patients’ medical records was collected. In the combined cohort, a multivariate analysis confirmed that the ROMA index, the R2 predictive index, and tumor laterality were extracted as independent factors for predicting malignant tumors (hazard ratio (HR): 222.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 22.27−2215.50, p < 0.001; HR: 9.80, 95% CI: 2.90−33.13, p < 0.001; HR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03−0.75, p = 0.021, respectively). In the pre-menopausal cohort, a multivariate analysis confirmed that the CPH index and the R2 predictive index were extracted as independent factors for predicting malignant tumors (HR: 6.45, 95% CI: 1.47−28.22, p = 0.013; HR: 31.19, 95% CI: 8.48−114.74, p < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, the R2 predictive index was only extracted as an independent factor for predicting borderline tumors (HR: 45.00, 95% CI: 7.43−272.52, p < 0.001) in the combined cohort. In pre-menopausal cases or borderline cases, the R2 predictive index is useful; while, in post-menopausal cases, the ROMA index is better than the other indexes.

Advances in surface plasmon resonance-based biosensor technologies for cancer biomarker detection

Surface plasmon resonance approach is a highly useful option to offer optical and label-free detection of target bioanalytes with numerous advantages (e.g., low-cost fabrication, appreciable sensitivity, label-free detection, and outstanding accuracy). As such, it allows early diagnosis of cancer biomarkers to monitor tumor progression and to prevent the recurrence of oncogenic tumors. This work highlights the recent progress in SPR biosensing technology for the diagnosis of various cancer types (e.g., lung, breast, prostate, and ovarian). Further, the performance of various SPR biosensors is also evaluated in terms of the basic quality assurance criteria (e.g., limit of detection (LOD), selectivity, sensor response time, and reusability). Finally, the limitations and future challenges associated with SPR biosensors are also discussed with respect to cancer biomarker detection.

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 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.

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.

Copenhagen Index versus ROMA in preoperative ovarian malignancy risk stratification: Result from the first Vietnamese prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in the preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, data were collected from 475 patients with ovarian masses diagnosed by gynecologic examination / ultrasound who were hospitalized at the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital and Hue Central Hospital, Vietnam, between January 2018 and June 2020. ROMA and CPH-I were calculated based on measurements of serum carbohydrate antigen (CA-125) and human epididymis protein (HE4). The final diagnosis was based on clinical features, radiologic and histologic findings, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2014 stages of ovarian cancer were recorded. Matching the values of ROMA and CPH-I to postoperative histopathology reports resulted in the preoperative prediction values.

RESULTS

Among the 475 women, 408 had benign tumors, 5 had borderline tumors and 62 had malignant tumors. The two indices showed similar discriminatory performances with no significant differences (p > 0.05). At an optimal cut-off, the sensitivities/specificities of ROMA and CPH-I for ovarian cancer diagnosis were 74.2% and 91.8%, 87.1% and 78.5%, respectively. The optimal cut-off for CPH-I was 1.89%. The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) of ROMA and CPH-I were 0.882 (95% CI: 0.849-0.909) and 0.898 (95% CI: 0.867-0.924), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the Copenhagen Index to help stratify the malignancy risk of ovarian tumors, irrespective of menopausal status, might be applied as a simple alternative with a similar efficacy to ROMA in clinical practice.

Age and menopausal status are important factors influencing the serum human epididymis secretory protein 4 level: a prospective cross-sectional study in healthy Chinese people

Background:

Human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) is a new ovarian cancer biomarker. The factors influencing HE4 levels are not clear, and the reference data in China are limited. Here, we aim to evaluate the effects of menopause and age on HE4 levels and to provide a possible reference value for HE4 in healthy Chinese people.

Methods:

A total of 2493 healthy females aged 40 years or older were recruited from March 2013 to March 2017 with the cooperation of four medical institutions across Beijing, China. The serum levels of HE4 and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test of variance and a stratified analysis were used to analyze the relationships among age, menopausal status, and levels of HE4 or CA125. Confidence intervals (5%–95%) were determined for reference ranges in different populations.

Results:

There was a statistically significant difference in median HE4 levels between the post-menopausal (n = 2168) and pre-menopausal groups (n = 325) (36.46 vs. 24.04 pmol/L, Z = −14.41, P < 0.001). HE4 increased significantly with age in the post-menopausal groups (H = 408.18, P < 0.001) but not in the pre-menopausal subjects (Z = −0.43, P = 0.67). The upper 95th percentile of HE4 levels were 44.63 pmol/L for pre-menopausal women, 78.17 pmol/L for post-menopausal women, and 73.3 pmol/L for all women. In the post-menopausal population, the HE4 reference ranges were 13.15 to 47.31, 14.31 to 58.04, 17.06 to 73.51, 24.50 to 115.25, and 35.71 to 212.37 pmol/L for different age groups from forty divided by decade. The CA125 level was affected mainly by menopausal status and not age.

Conclusions:

Menopausal status and age were both important factors influencing the level of HE4, and age affected HE4 levels mainly in post-menopausal women. The HE4 level was higher in the post-menopausal population than in the pre-menopausal population and increased with age.

Diagnostic Added-Value of Serum CA-125 on the IOTA Simple Rules and Derivation of Practical Combined Prediction Models (IOTA SR X CA-125)

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic added-value of serum CA-125 to the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules in order to facilitate differentiation between malignant and benign ovarian tumors before surgery. Methods: A secondary analysis of a cross-sectional cohort of women scheduled for surgery in Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital between April 2010 and March 2018 was carried out. Demographic and clinical data were prospectively collected. Histopathologic diagnosis was used as the reference standard. Logistic regression was used for development of the model. Evaluation of the diagnostic added-value was based on the increment of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC). Results: One hundred and forty-five women (30.3%) out of a total of 479 with adnexal masses had malignant ovarian tumors. The model that included information from the IOTA Simple Rules and serum CA-125 was significantly more superior to the model that used only information from the IOTA Simple Rules (AuROC 0.95 vs. 0.89, p < 0.001 for pre-menopause and AuROC 0.98 vs 0.83, p < 0.001 for post-menopause). Conclusions: The IOTA SR X CA-125 model showed high discriminative ability and is potentially useful as a decision tool for guiding patient referrals to oncologic specialists.

A biosensor for determination of the circulating biomarker CA125/MUC16 by Surface Plasmon Resonance Imaging

CA125/MUC16 is an ovarian tumor cell marker widely used as a biomarker in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. CA125/MUC16 is also used for evaluation of the ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) value. In this work, a Surface Plasmon Resonance Imaging (SPRI) biosensor for circulating CA125/MUC16 has been developed. The anti-MUC16 antibody was attached to a gold chip via a cysteamine linker. The EDS/NHS protocol was used for the covalent attachment of the antibody. The developed biosensor is specific for CA125/MUC16, and exhibits good recovery and acceptable precision. Its linear response range (2.2-150 U/ml) is well suited to determination of the marker in the blood serum of a healthy control group and, after appropriate dilution, of patients with ovarian cancer. CA125/MUC16 was determined in two series of real samples: blood serum from patients with ovarian cancer and endometrial cysts. The method was validated by parallel determination of the samples using the chemiluminescent Architect i2000 method.

Clinical value of ROMA index in diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis

Objectives

The role of retrospective analysis has evolved greatly in cancer research. We undertook this network meta-analysis to evaluate retrospectively the diagnostic value of ROMA in ovarian cancer.

Materials and methods

We systematically retrieved 56 relevant articles published about ROMA index from 2009–2018 and about ovarian cancer from China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), PubMed and EMBASE. Data were comprehensively analyzed by Rev-Man 5.3 and MetaDisc 12.4 software.

Results

Data of 5,954 cases were retrieved from 23 literatures. Among them, 2,117 cases were in the ovarian cancer group and 3,837 cases in the control group. The pooled estimates for the ROMA index were sensitivity: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.88–0.93), specificity: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89–0.94), positive predictive: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95), negative predictive: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95), and area under ROC curve: 0.96, compared to 0.71 (95% CI: 0.56–0.82), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80–0.92), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78–0.86), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94), and 0.88 of HE4, respectively.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis confirms that the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm can facilitate the diagnosis of ovarian cancer to some extent.