Comparison of HE4, CA125, and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm in the Prediction of Ovarian Cancer in Korean Women

Multiple biomarkers are more accurate than a combination of carbohydrate antigen 125 and human epididymis protein 4 for ovarian cancer screening

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the diagnostic value of serum carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and/or human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and a panel of novel multiple biomarkers in patients with ovarian tumors to identify more accurate and effective markers for screening ovarian cancer.

Methods

Candidate ovarian cancer biomarkers were selected based on a literature search. Dozens of candidate biomarkers were examined using 143 serum samples from patients with ovarian cancer and 157 healthy serum samples as non-cancer controls. To select the optimal marker panel for an ovarian cancer classification model, a set of biomarker panels was created with the number of possible combinations of 8 biomarkers. Using the set of biomarkers as an input variable, the optimal biomarker panel was selected by examining the performance of the biomarker panel set using the Random Forest algorithm as a non-linear classification method and a 10-fold cross-validation technique.

Results

The final selected optimal combination of five biomarkers (CA125, HE4, CA15.3, ApoA1, and ApoA2) exhibited a sensitivity of 93.71% and specificity of 93.63% for ovarian cancer detection during validation.

Conclusion

Combining multiple biomarkers is a valid strategy for ovarian cancer diagnosis and can be used as a minimally invasive screening method for early ovarian cancer. A panel of five optimal biomarkers, including CA125 and HE4, was verified in this study. These can potentially be used as clinical biomarkers for early detection of ovarian cancer.

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.

Utility of Preoperative Inflammatory Markers to Distinguish Epithelial Ovarian Cancer from Benign Ovarian Masses

Background: Inflammatory markers have been reported to be predictors for the presence of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), however, the cut-off value of each marker remains unclear and predictive capability of the markers in different histology types of EOC is still unknown.

Methods: A total of 207 patients with benign ovarian masses and 887 EOC patients who underwent surgical resection, and were pathologically diagnosed were included. We compared the difference of preoperative inflammatory markers between benign ovarian masses and EOC patients. Stratified analysis by histology subtype was further conducted. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was used to evaluate the predictive capability of the markers.

Results: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) were significantly associated with all stages and subtypes of EOC (P<0.001). The optimal cut-off points based on ROC curve analyses for NLR, PLR, and LMR were found to be 2.139 (AUC=0.749, P<0.001), 182.698 (AUC=0.730, P<0.001), and 3.619 (AUC = 0.709, P<0.001), respectively. In low CA125 level patients, high level of NLR and PLR increase the risk of endometrioid EOC, while low level of LMR were significantly associated with an increased risk of serous EOC.

Conclusions: In addition to CA125, NLR, PLR, and LMR could be used as predictors of EOC and preoperative inflammatory markers may be used as a potential biomarker for predicting different histotypes of EOC.

Evaluation of Combined Cancer Markers With Lactate Dehydrogenase and Application of Machine Learning Algorithms for Differentiating Benign Disease From Malignant Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

The differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer is important, and there has been ongoing research to identify biomarkers with higher performance. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of combinations of cancer markers classified by machine learning algorithms in patients with early stage ovarian cancer, which has rarely been reported.

METHODS

In total, 730 serum samples were assayed for lactate dehydrogenase (LD), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA). Among them, 53 were diagnosed with early stage ovarian cancer, and the remaining 677 were diagnosed with benign disease.

RESULTS

The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-AUCs) of the ROMA, HE4, CA125, LD, and NLR for discriminating ovarian cancer from non-cancerous disease were .707, .680, .643, .657, and .624, respectively. ROC-AUC of the combination of ROMA and LD (.709) was similar to that of single ROMA in the total population. In the postmenopausal group, ROC-AUCs of HE4 and CA125 combined with LD presented the highest value (.718). When machine learning algorithms were applied to ROMA combined with LD, the ROC-AUC of random forest was higher than that of other applied algorithms in the total population (.757), showing acceptable performance.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the combinations of ovarian cancer-specific markers with LD classified by random forest may be a useful tool for predicting ovarian cancer, particularly in clinical settings, due to easy accessibility and cost-effectiveness. Application of an optimal combination of cancer markers and algorithms would facilitate appropriate management of ovarian cancer patients.

Comparison of CA 125 alone and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in patients with adnexal mass: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the performance of CA 125 and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in differentiating epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) from benign adnexal mass. We consecutively enrolled 782 patients referred to tertiary hospitals with adnexal mass requiring surgical treatment. A total 322 of patients with benign adnexal disease and 327 patients with EOC were included in the analysis. Using reference cut-off values in premenopausal women, ROMA had better specificity (0.926 vs. 0.787, P < 0.001) and accuracy (0.875 vs. 0.777, P < 0.001) than CA 125 alone and comparable sensitivity (0.707 vs. 0.747, P = 0.549). Using optimum cut-off values in premenopausal women, CA 125 and ROMA had comparable specificity (0.922 vs. 0.947, P < 0.001) and accuracy (0.871 vs. 0.868, P = 0.879); however, sensitivity for CA 125 was inferior to that of ROMA (0.707 vs. 0.613, P = 0.039). In postmenopausal women, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were comparable between CA 125 alone and ROMA using either reference cut-off values or optimum cut-off values.ROMA showed better diagnostic performance in differentiating EOC from benign adnexal tumors among premenopausal women. However, in postmenopausal women, ROMA did not show any benefit over CA 125 alone.

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.

Does the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm Provide Better Diagnostic Performance Than HE4 and CA125 in the Presurgical Differentiation of Adnexal Tumors in Polish Women?

Aim

This study compared the diagnostic performance of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and HE4 and CA125 for the presurgical differentiation of adnexal tumors.

Material and Methods

This prospective study included 302 patients admitted for surgical treatment due to adnexal tumors. The ROMA was calculated depending on CA125, HE4, and menopausal status.

Results

Fifty patients were diagnosed with malignant disease. In the differentiation of malignant from nonmalignant adnexal tumors, the area under curve (AUC) was higher for ROMA and HE4 than that for CA125 in both the premenopausal and postmenopausal subgroups. In the differentiation of stage I FIGO malignancies and epithelial ovarian cancer from nonmalignant pathologies, the AUC of HE4 and ROMA was higher than that of CA125. The ROMA performed significantly better than CA125 in the differentiation of all malignancies and differentiation of stage I FIGO malignancies from nonmalignant pathologies (p = 0.043 and p = 0.025, resp.). There were no significant differences between the ROMA and the tumor markers for any other variants.

Conclusions

The ROMA is more useful than CA125 for the differentiation of malignant (including stage I FIGO) from nonmalignant adnexal tumors. It is also as useful as HE4 and CA125 for the differentiation of epithelial ovarian cancer from nonmalignant adnexal tumors.

Diagnostic Model of Serum miR-193a-5p, HE4 and CA125 Improves the Diagnostic Efficacy of Epithelium Ovarian Cancer

Epithelium ovarian cancer (EOC) is currently the prevalent malignant cancer worldwide. However, there is a lack of efficient biomarkers for EOC screening. Accumulating evidence reveals that serum miRNA detectable in various types of cancer. Therefore, we explore the diagnostic value of combined detection of plasma miR-193a-5p, HE4 and CA125 for EOC. Serum samples were collected from 45 patients with primary EOC, 30 patients with benign ovarian tumor patients and 40 healthy controls. The expression of serum miR-193a-5p was detected by real-time quantitative PCR, and serum HE4 and CA125 were detected by chemiluminescent immunoassay. Moreover, a diagnostic model combining miR-193a-5p, HE4 and CA125 or alone in EOC patients was evaluated by ROC curve analysis. The relative expression quantity (RQ) of serum miR-193a-5p in EOC patients, benign ovarian tumor patients and healthy control groups were 0.419 (0.093, 2.215), 3.667 (1.633, 6.691) and 1.130 (1.000, 7.087), respectively. The RQ of serum miR-193a-5p in EOC patients was significantly lower than that in benign ovarian tumor patients and healthy controls (both P < 0.001), and there was no significant difference between benign ovarian tumor patients and healthy controls (both P > 0.05). There was no significant correlation between serum miR-193-5p, HE4 and CA125 levels (both P > 0.05). Additionally a risk model for miR-193a-5p, HE4 and CA125 was correlated with Grading and Lymph node metastasis (P = 0.016, P = 0.029). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of a risk model for distinguishing EOC patients from healthy individuals was 0.996, which higher than any single biomarker. Combined detection of miR-193-5p, HE4 and CA125 by logistic regression analysis could greatly improved the diagnostic ability of EOC and may prove to be a candidate biomarker, providing new directions for further investigation.

Diagnostic accuracy of inflammatory markers for distinguishing malignant and benign ovarian masses

Objective: To evaluate the role of inflammatory markers for distinguishing malignant and benign ovarian masses.

Methods: Preoperative demographic, clinicopathologic, and laboratory variables were reviewed in patients with an ovarian mass that was subsequently diagnosed as either epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or a benign ovarian mass on histologic analysis. The differences between variables of the two groups were further evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was applied to evaluate variables to predict the presence of EOC.

Results: According to the analysis of 229 patients with EOC, 120 (52.4%) patients had serous adenocarcinoma. Of the 229 patients, 110 (48.1%) patients had stage I or II disease and 119 (52.0%) had stage III or IV disease. There was a significant difference between EOC and benign ovarian mass in median values of variables such as age, white blood cell (WBC) count, hemoglobin concentration, platelet count, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) levels, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) (all P < 0.001, except for WBC count [P = 0.009]). In addition, there was significant difference in median values of these continuous variables among early-stage EOC, advanced-stage EOC, and benign ovarian mass (P < 0.001 for all variables). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] = 4.14, P < 0.001), CA125 levels (OR = 9.87, P < 0.001), NLR (OR = 1.76, P = 0.049), PLR (OR = 2.41, P = 0.004), and LMR (OR = 0.51, P = 0.024) were found to significantly predict the presence of EOC.

Conclusion: The three LMR, NLR, and PLR markers were found to be predictors for the presence of EOC. Further prospective studies to assess these markers as screening tools for the presence of EOC are required.

The role of novel biomarker HE4 in the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of ovarian cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancers, in fact, >80% of cases are diagnosed as advanced-stage disease associated with a high mortality rate (<40% of women cured). A systematic review was performed to estimate the role of HE4 in the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of ovarian tumors. Areas covered: A comprehensive search of the literature from January 1952 to August 2016 was conducted using the terms 'ovarian tumor' and 'ovarian cancer' combined with 'HE4' and 'human epididymis protein 4'. The search identified a total of 259 citations, of which 141 were potentially relevant after initial evaluation. Of these studies, 75 primary studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed, with a total of 14,773 patients. Expert commentary: Serum HE4 dosage is a useful preoperative test for predicting the benign or malignant nature of pelvic masses. It seems to have a promising role in the prediction of clinical and surgical outcomes. Moreover, HE4 seems to better predict recurrence in comparison to CA-125.

Performance of ROMA based on Architect CA 125 II and HE4 values in Chinese women presenting with a pelvic mass: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the performance of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), cancer antigen 125(CA 125) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in distinguishing between benign and malignant pelvic masses in Chinese women.

METHOD

From April to December 2012, women with a pelvic mass scheduled to have surgery were enrolled in a prospective, multi-center study conducted in 5 different regions in China. Preoperative serum concentrations of HE4 and CA 125 were examined and ROMA was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 684 women with a pelvic mass were included, of which 482 were diagnosed with benign conditions and 202 were diagnosed with malignant ovarian tumors. At cutoffs of 7.4% and 25.3% for ROMA, the sensitivities and specificities were 85.6% and 81.7% for all patients, 85.7% and 81.5% for premenopausal women, and 85.6% and 83.9% for postmenopausal women, respectively. The ROC-AUC of ROMA was significantly better than that of HE4 (P=0.0003) or CA 125 (P<0.0001) for all malignant diseases (including EOC, Non-EOC, LMP, metastases and other pelvic malignancy with no involvement of the ovaries) compared with benign diseases for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the efficiency of ROMA in the distinction of ovarian cancers from benign disease in a multiple-regions Chinese population, especially in premenopausal women.

Diagnostic Value of Combining Tumor and Inflammatory Markers in Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite major advances in lung cancer treatment, early detection remains the most promising way of improving outcomes. To detect lung cancer in earlier stages, many serum biomarkers have been tested. Unfortunately, no single biomarker can reliably detect lung cancer. We combined a set of 2 tumor markers and 4 inflammatory or metabolic markers and tried to validate the diagnostic performance in lung cancer.

METHODS

We collected serum samples from 355 lung cancer patients and 590 control subjects and divided them into training and validation datasets. After measuring serum levels of 6 biomarkers (human epididymis secretory protein 4 [HE4], carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted [RANTES], apolipoprotein A2 [ApoA2], transthyretin [TTR], and secretory vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 [sVCAM-1]), we tested various sets of biomarkers for their diagnostic performance in lung cancer.

RESULTS

In a training dataset, the area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.821 for HE4, 0.753 for CEA, 0.858 for RANTES, 0.867 for ApoA2, 0.830 for TTR, and 0.552 for sVCAM-1. A model using all 6 biomarkers and age yielded an AUC value of 0.986 and sensitivity of 93.2% (cutoff at specificity 94%). Applying this model to the validation dataset showed similar results. The AUC value of the model was 0.988, with sensitivity of 93.33% and specificity of 92.00% at the same cutoff point used in the validation dataset. Analyses by stages and histologic subtypes all yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining multiple tumor and systemic inflammatory markers proved to be a valid strategy in the diagnosis of lung cancer.

Preoperative HE4, CA125 and ROMA in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate HE4, CA125 and ROMA in the preoperative differentiation benign ovarian diseases from epithelial ovarian cancer depending on the menopausal status.

Methods

In order to estimate markers’ concentrations in the serum of women with benign ovarian disease (n = 128) and with epithelial ovarian carcinoma (n = 96) the electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA) technique has been applied.

Results

Using the ROC analysis, although no statistical differences were found among their AUCs, the ROMA algorithm seems to be effective in gathering the diverse performance of HE4 and CA125. The AUC for HE4, CA125 and ROMA for all patients were: 0.895; 0.879 and 0.918, respectively. At established new optimal cutoff values for HE4, CA125 and ROMA we found higher specificity in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women (96.9 vs 89.8 % and 97.7 vs 84.1 % and 95.9 vs 89.1 %, respectively). The sensitivity of HE4 in pre- and postmenopausal women was similar (83.5 vs 83.8 %), while for CA125 was the highest in premenopausal women (87.0 vs 84.1 %). For HE4, CA125 and ROMA the negative predictive value was high (97.6, 93.9 and 94.4 %, respectively).

Conclusions

The ROMA algorithm shows the best diagnostic performance to distinguish epithelial ovarian cancer from benign ovarian disease. We found the high specificity of HE4 and CA125 while differentiating ovarian benign diseases from epithelial ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women and the high sensitivity of CA125 in detecting epithelial ovarian cancer in premenopausal patients.

Value of serum human epididymis secretory protein 4 as a marker for differential diagnosis of malignant and benign gynecological diseases of patients in southern China

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the clinical value of HE4 in distinguishing malignant and benign gynecological diseases of patients in southern China.

METHODS

Preoperative serum CA125 and HE4 concentrations were tested in samples of women with malignant or benign gynecological diseases using fully automated methods (Abbott ARCHITECT) and validated cutoff values.

RESULTS

For the discrimination of ovarian cancer from benign gynecological diseases, in premenopausal women, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% and 67.5% for CA125, 68.5% and 97.8% for HE4, and 88.9% and 78.6% for ROMA, whereas in postmenopausal women, the sensitivity and specificity were 86.6% and 88.9% for CA125, 57.3% and 100% for HE4, and 85.4% and 94.4% for ROMA. For the discrimination of endometrial cancer from benign gynecological diseases, in premenopausal women, the sensitivity and specificity were 20.3% and 67.5% for CA125, 56.8% and 97.8% for HE4, and 74.3% and 78.6% for ROMA, whereas in postmenopausal women, the sensitivity and specificity were 17.8% and 88.9% for CA125, 31.5% and 100% for HE4, and 32.9% and 94.4% for ROMA.

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that HE4 had better specificity than CA125 in discriminating ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer from benign gynecological diseases in southern China population.