Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Tumors

Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors

BACKGROUND

Compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and serum tumor markers alone or in combination for detecting ovarian tumors.

AIM

To investigate the diagnostic value of US, MRI combined with tumor markers in ovarian tumors.

METHODS

The data of 110 patients with ovarian tumors, confirmed by surgery and pathology, were collected in our hospital from February 2018 to May 2023. The dataset included 60 cases of benign tumors and 50 cases of malignant tumors. Prior to surgery, all patients underwent preoperative US and MRI examinations, as well as serum tumor marker tests [carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4)]. The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of these three methods individually and in combination for ovarian tumors.

RESULTS

This study found statistically significant differences in the ultrasonic imaging characteristics between benign and malignant tumors. These differences include echo characteristics, presence or absence of a capsule, blood flow resistance index, clear tumor shape, and blood flow signal display rate (P < 0.05). The apparent diffusion coefficient values of the solid and cystic parts in benign tumors were found to be higher compared to malignant tumors (P < 0.05). Additionally, the time-intensity curve image features of benign and malignant tumors showed significant statistical differences (P < 0.05). The levels of serum CA125 and HE4 in benign tumors were lower than those in malignant tumors (P < 0.05). The combined use of US, MRI, and tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors demonstrates higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared to using each method individually (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

US, MRI, and tumor markers each have their own advantages and disadvantages when it comes to diagnosing ovarian tumors. However, by combining these three methods, we can significantly enhance the accuracy of ovarian tumor diagnosis, enabling early detection and identification of the tumor’s nature, and providing valuable guidance for clinical treatment.

Comparison of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and Copenhagen Index for the preoperative assessment of Japanese women with ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) in their ability to distinguish epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and malignant ovarian tumors (MLOT) from benign ovarian tumors (BeOT) in Japanese women.

METHODS

Patients with pathologically diagnosed ovarian tumors were included in this study. The study validated the diagnostic performance of ROMA and CPH-I.

RESULTS

Among the 463 Japanese women included in this study, 312 had BeOT, 99 had EOC, and 52 had other MLOT. The receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUCs) of ROMA (0.89) and CPH-I (0.89) for distinguishing EOC from BeOT were significantly higher than that of CA125 (0.82) (CA 125 vs. ROMA; p = 0.002, vs. CPH-I; p < 0.001). The ROC-AUCs of ROMA (0.82) and CPH-I (0.81) for distinguishing MLOT from BeOT were significantly higher than that of CA125 (0.75) (CA 125 vs. ROMA: p = 0.003, vs. CPH-I: p < 0.001). The sensitivity (SN)/specificity (SP) of ROMA and CPH-I for distinguishing EOC from BeOT at standard cut-off points were 69%/90%, and 69%/90%, respectively, those for distinguishing MLOT from BeOT were 54%/90%, and 55%/90%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ROMA and CPH-I performed comparably well and better than CA125 in distinguishing EOC from BeOT in Japanese women. ROMA and CHP-I should be used with caution in practical situations, where all histological possibilities for must be considered, because the SNs of ROMA and CPH-I were only 54% and 55%.

Current and Emerging Strategies for Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Diagnostics

Tubo-ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. More than 75% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, which is associated with poorer overall survival. Symptoms at presentation are vague and non-specific, contributing to late diagnosis. Multimodal risk models have improved the diagnostic accuracy of adnexal mass assessment based on patient risk factors, coupled with findings on imaging and serum-based biomarker tests. Newly developed ultrasonographic assessment algorithms have standardised documentation and enable stratification of care between local hospitals and cancer centres. So far, no screening test has proven to reduce ovarian cancer mortality in the general population. This review is an update on the evidence behind ovarian cancer diagnostic strategies.

Diagnostic performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in identifying primary ovarian cancer

AIMS

To evaluate the ability of carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) to identify primary ovarian cancer (OC) from borderline and benign ovarian tumors (OTs) and explore ideal cutoff points.

METHODS

A total of 684 OTs containing 276 OC patients, 116 ovarian borderline OTs and 292 benign OTs patients who underwent surgery in our hospital were included. We retrospectively searched the results of CA125 and HE4 before patients' surgery from the hospital's electronic medical records system. ROMA and CPH-I were calculated according to their menopausal status and age, respectively. Diagnostic performance of these four were assessed by drawing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I were all significantly higher in OC women compared with borderline OTs (p < 0.001), followed by benign OTs (p < 0.001). Area under the curves (AUCs) for distinguishing OC were 0.850 (0.818-0.882), 0.891 (0.865-0.916), 0.910 (0.888-0.933) and 0.906 (0.882-0.930), respectively, and the corresponding ideal cutoff values for CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I were 132.5, 68.6, 23.8, and 6.4, respectively. The difference between ROMA and CPH-I was not significant (p = 0.97), but both were higher than CA125 and HE4 (p < 0.05). HE4 showed a significantly higher AUC than CA125 (p < 0.05). For postmenopausal women, CA125 performed equivalently to ROMA (p = 0.73) and CPH-I (p = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

In identifying patients with OC, ROMA and CPH-I outperformed single tumor marker. The diagnostic performance of HE4 was significantly higher than that of CA125. CA125 was more suitable for postmenopausal women.

Value of the Copenhagen index in the diagnosis of malignant adnexal tumors: A meta-analysis

Ovarian cancer is a common gynecological malignant tumor. Early diagnosis is important for the prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer. To evaluate the accuracy of the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) in detecting malignant adnexal tumors and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CPH-I and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA). PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were used to retrieve eligible studies. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the (summary receiver operating characteristic) curve (AUC) were 0.81, 0.88, 6.61, 0.22, 30.43, and 0.91, respectively, in diagnosing malignant adnexal tumors. In addition, using ROMA, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.83, 0.85, and 0.90, respectively. CPH-I showed high accuracy in diagnosing malignant adnexal tumors, which could be an alternative method with similar efficacy to ROMA. CPH-I was more advantageous in diagnosing adnexal tumors in postmenopausal women.

Peptides for diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecologic malignancy, and its incidence is gradually increasing. Despite improvements after treatment, the results are unsatisfactory and survival rates are relatively low. Therefore, early diagnosis and effective treatment remain two major challenges. Peptides have received significant attention in the search for new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Radiolabeled peptides specifically bind to cancer cell surface receptors for diagnostic purposes, while differential peptides in bodily fluids can also be used as new diagnostic markers. In terms of treatment, peptides can exert cytotoxic effects directly or act as ligands for targeted drug delivery. Peptide-based vaccines are an effective approach for tumor immunotherapy and have achieved clinical benefit. In addition, several advantages of peptides, such as specific targeting, low immunogenicity, ease of synthesis and high biosafety, make peptides attractive alternative tools for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, particularly ovarian cancer. In this review, we focus on the recent research progress regarding peptides in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer, and their potential applications in the clinical setting.

Clinical usefulness of circulating tumor markers

Tumor markers are a heterogeneous group of substances released by cancer cells into bloodstream, but also expressed by healthy tissues. Thus, very small concentrations can be present in plasma and serum from healthy subjects. Cancer patients tend to show increased levels correlating with tumor bulk, but false positive results could be present in patients with benign conditions. The correct interpretation of TM results could be challenging and many factors should be considered, from pre-analytical conditions to patient concomitant diseases. In this line, the Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine journal has made important contributions though several publications promoting the adequate use of TM and therefore improving patient safety. TM measurement offers valuable information for cancer patient management in different clinical contexts, such as helping diagnosis, estimating prognosis, facilitating early detection of relapse and monitoring therapy response. Our review analyzes the clinical usefulness of tumor markers applied in most frequent epithelial tumors, based on recent evidence and guidelines.

Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors in Postmenopausal Patients

Early diagnosis of ovarian cancer remains an urgent issue owing to the continuing trend towards increasing incidence along with only marginal improvements in mortality and 5-year survival rates. Furthermore, there is a lack of a clear formulation of the concept of pathogenesis. The diagnostic values of tumor markers, their potential advantages and disadvantages, and their combination with radiation imaging methods and transvaginal sonography are discussed. More advanced imaging techniques, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging have proven too expensive for widespread use. According to the World Health Organization, more than half of the world’s population does not have access to diagnostic imaging. Consequently, there is high demand for a low-cost, reliable, and safe imaging system for detecting and monitoring cancer. Currently, there is no clear algorithm available for examining and accurately diagnosing patients with postmenopausal ovarian tumors; moreover, reliable criteria allowing dynamic observation and for determining surgical access and optimal surgical intervention measures in postmenopausal patients are lacking. Medical microwave radiometry shows promising results yielding an accuracy of 90%.

Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecological cancer, leading to over 152,000 deaths each year. A late diagnosis is the primary factor causing a poor prognosis of ovarian cancer and often occurs due to a lack of specific symptoms and effective biomarkers for an early detection. Currently, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is the most widely used biomarker for ovarian cancer detection, but this approach is limited by a low specificity. In recent years, multimarker panels have been developed by combining molecular biomarkers such as human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4), ultrasound results, or menopausal status to improve the diagnostic efficacy. The risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), the risk of malignancy index (RMI), and OVA1 assays have also been clinically used with improved sensitivity and specificity. Ongoing investigations into novel biomarkers such as autoantibodies, ctDNAs, miRNAs, and DNA methylation signatures continue to aim to provide earlier detection methods for ovarian cancer. This paper reviews recent advancements in molecular biomarkers for the early detection of ovarian cancer.

Defining Models to Classify between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses Using Routine Laboratory Parameters

Simple Summary

In patients with adnexal masses, classification into benign or malignant tumors is essential for optimal treatment planning, but remains challenging. In the search for new models applicable in a routine clinical setting, we compared classical single parameters to multiparameter predictive models.

Abstract

Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses is essential for optimal treatment planning, but still remains challenging in a routine clinical setting. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare albumin as a single parameter to calculate models by analyzing laboratory parameters of 1552 patients with an adnexal mass (epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC): n= 294; borderline tumor of the ovary (BTO): n = 66; benign adnexal mass: n = 1192) undergoing surgery. Models comprising classical laboratory parameters show better accuracies (AUCs 0.92–0.93; 95% CI 0.90–0.95) compared to the use of single markers, and could easily be implemented in clinical practice by containing only readily available markers. This has been incorporated into a nomogram.

Current and Emerging Methods for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review

With a 5-year survival rate of less than 50%, ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is one of the most highly aggressive gynecological malignancies affecting women today. The high mortality rate of HGSC is largely attributable to delays in diagnosis, as most patients remain undiagnosed until the late stages of -disease. There are currently no recommended screening tests for ovarian cancer and there thus remains an urgent need for new diagnostic methods, particularly those that can detect the disease at early stages when clinical intervention remains effective. While diagnostics for ovarian cancer share many of the same technical hurdles as for other cancer types, the low prevalence of the disease in the general population, coupled with a notable lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers, have made the development of a clinically useful screening strategy particularly challenging. Here, we present a detailed review of the overall landscape of ovarian cancer diagnostics, with emphasis on emerging methods that employ novel protein, genetic, epigenetic and imaging-based biomarkers and/or advanced diagnostic technologies for the noninvasive detection of HGSC, particularly in women at high risk due to germline mutations such as BRCA1/2. Lastly, we discuss the translational potential of these approaches for achieving a clinically implementable solution for screening and diagnostics of early-stage ovarian cancer as a means of ultimately improving patient outcomes in both the general and high-risk populations.

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.

Biomarker-Based Models for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Mass: A Multicenter Validation Study

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal genital malignancy in women. We aimed to develop and validate new proteomic-based models for non-invasive diagnosis of OC. We also compared them to the modified Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA-50), the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and our earlier Proteomic Model 2017. Biomarkers were assessed using bead-based multiplex technology (Luminex®) in 356 women (250 with malignant and 106 with benign ovarian tumors) from five European centers. The training cohort included 279 women from three centers, and the validation cohort 77 women from two other centers. Of six previously studied serum proteins (CA125, HE4, osteopontin [OPN], prolactin, leptin, and macrophage migration inhibitory factor [MIF]), four contributed significantly to the Proteomic Model 2021 (CA125, OPN, prolactin, MIF), while leptin and HE4 were omitted by the algorithm. The Proteomic Model 2021 revealed a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96, 0.99) in the training cohort; however, in the validation cohort it only achieved a c-index of 0.82 (95% CI 0.72, 0.91). Adding patient age to the Proteomic Model 2021 constituted the Combined Model 2021, with a c-index of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97, 1) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.86 (95% CI 0.78, 0.95) in the validation cohort. The Full Combined Model 2021 (all six proteins with age) yielded a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97, 0.99) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.89 (95% CI 0.81, 0.97) in the validation cohort. The validation of our previous Proteomic Model 2017, as well as the ROMA-50 and CPH-I revealed a c-index of 0.9 (95% CI 0.82, 0.97), 0.54 (95% CI 0.38, 0.69) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.85, 0.98), respectively. In postmenopausal women, the three newly developed models all achieved a specificity of 1.00, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1.00, and a sensitivity of >0.9. Performance in women under 50 years of age (c-index below 0.6) or with normal CA125 (c-index close to 0.5) was poor. CA125 and OPN had the best discriminating power as single markers. In summary, the CPH-I, the two combined 2021 Models, and the Proteomic Model 2017 showed satisfactory diagnostic accuracies, with no clear superiority of either model. Notably, although combining values of only four proteins with age, the Combined Model 2021 performed comparably to the Full Combined Model 2021. The models confirmed their exceptional diagnostic performance in women aged ≥50. All models outperformed the ROMA-50.