Diagnostic performance and establishment of reference limits of HE4 in Korean healthy women

Predictive Value of HE4 in Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

Objective

To evaluate the value of serum Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) for predicting the resistance of ovarian cancer (OS) to platinum chemotherapy.

Method

We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CNKI databases and screened all studies evaluating serum HE4 for predicting OC resistance to treatment with platinum. Two researchers independently evaluated the quality of all eligible original studies using QUADAS-2. RevMan 5.4 was used to compile the quality evaluation form. We also performed a meta-analysis with STATA15.1, and Deek’s funnel plots were used to detect any publication bias.

Results

Eight studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Our results showed that the sensitivity and specificity of preoperative serum HE4 in predicting the resistance of OC to platinum chemotherapy was 80% and 67%, respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 8, and the AUC was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82), whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity of serum HE4 after the third-cycle of chemotherapies for predicting chemoresistance in OC was 86% and 85%, respectively, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 33 and AUC = 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89 – 0.94).

Conclusion

HE4 may be an effective predictor of platinum-based chemotherapeutic resistance of OC. Serum HE4 levels after the third chemotherapy cycle may be indicative for clinical practice. Further research is needed to validate the significance of HE4 in the long-term management of OC.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, PROSPERO (CRD42021220099).

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.

The power of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm considering menopausal status: a comparison with CA 125 and HE4

Objective

To identify the power of tumor markers for predicting ovarian cancer according to menopausal status.

Methods

The medical records of 876 women with ovarian cysts were retrospectively reviewed. Cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses of these tumor markers were evaluated.

Results

The sensitivity of ROMA was 66.7% and the specificity was 86.8% to detect ovarian malignancy. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to menopausal status: premenopause (n=532, 60.7%) and postmenopause (n=344, 39.3%). For diagnostic accuracy, ROMA was lower than HE4 in premenopausal women (82.7% vs. 91.4%) and lower than CA 125 in postmenopausal women (86.9% vs. 88.7%). The ROC curve analysis revealed that the power of ROMA was not significantly better than that of HE4 in premenopausal women (area under the curve [AUC], 0.731 vs. 0.732, p=0.832), and it was also not significantly better than that of CA 125 in postmenopausal women (AUC, 0.871 vs. 0.888, p=0.440).

Conclusion

The discrimination power of tumor markers for ovarian cancer was different according to menopausal status. In predicting ovarian malignancy, ROMA was neither superior to HE4 in premenopausal women nor superior to CA 125 in postmenopausal women.

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.

Correlates of circulating ovarian cancer early detection markers and their contribution to discrimination of early detection models: results from the EPIC cohort

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer early detection markers CA125, CA15.3, HE4, and CA72.4 vary between healthy women, limiting their utility for screening.

METHODS

We evaluated cross-sectional relationships between lifestyle and reproductive factors and these markers among controls (n = 1910) from a nested case-control study in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Improvements in discrimination of prediction models adjusting for correlates of the markers were evaluated among postmenopausal women in the nested case-control study (n = 590 cases). Generalized linear models were used to calculate geometric means of CA125, CA15.3, and HE4. CA72.4 above vs. below limit of detection was evaluated using logistic regression. Early detection prediction was modeled using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

CA125 concentrations were lower, and CA15.3 higher, in post- vs. premenopausal women (p ≤ 0.02). Among postmenopausal women, CA125 was higher among women with higher parity and older age at menopause (ptrend ≤ 0.02), but lower among women reporting oophorectomy, hysterectomy, ever use of estrogen-only hormone therapy, or current smoking (p < 0.01). CA15.3 concentrations were higher among heavier women and in former smokers (p ≤ 0.03). HE4 was higher with older age at blood collection and in current smokers, and inversely associated with OC use duration, parity, and older age at menopause (≤ 0.02). No associations were observed with CA72.4. Adjusting for correlates of the markers in prediction models did not improve the discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights into sources of variation in ovarian cancer early detection markers in healthy women and informs about the utility of individualizing marker cutpoints based on epidemiologic factors.