A real-world comparison of the clinical and economic utility of OVA1 and CA125 in assessing ovarian tumor malignancy risk

Aim: This largest-of-its-kind study evaluated the clinical utility of CA125 and OVA1, commonly used as ovarian tumor markers for assessing the risk of malignancy. The research focused on the ability and utility of these tests to reliably predict patients at low risk for ovarian cancer. Clinical utility endpoints were 12-month maintenance of benign mass status, reduction in gynecologic oncologist referral, avoidable surgical intervention and associated cost savings. Materials & methods: This was a multicenter retrospective review of data from electronic medical records and administrative claims databases. Patients receiving a CA125 or OVA1 test between October 2018 and September 2020 were identified and followed for 12 months using site-specific electronic medical records to assess tumor status and utilization outcomes. Propensity score adjustment was used to control for confounding variables. Payer allowed amounts from Merative MarketScan Research Databases were used to estimate 12-month episode-of-care costs per patient, including surgery and other interventions. Results: Among 290 low-risk OVA1 patients, 99.0% remained benign for 12 months compared with 97.2% of 181 low-risk CA125 patients. The OVA1 cohort exhibited 75% lower odds of surgical intervention in the overall sample of patients (Adjusted OR: 0.251, p ≤ 0.0001), and 63% lower odds of gynecologic oncologist utilization among premenopausal women (Adjusted OR: 0.37, p = 0.0390) versus CA125. OVA1 demonstrated significant savings in surgical interventions ($2486, p ≤ 0.0001) and total episode-of-care costs ($2621, p ≤ 0.0001) versus CA125. Conclusion: This study underscores the utility of a reliably predictive multivariate assay for assessing ovarian cancer risk. For patients assessed at low risk of ovarian tumor malignancy, OVA1 is associated with a significant reduction in avoidable surgeries and substantial cost savings per patient. OVA1 is also associated with a significant reduction in subspecialty referrals for low-risk premenopausal patients.

A Reflex Testing Protocol Using Two Multivariate Index Assays Improves the Risk Assessment for Ovarian Cancer in Patients with an Adnexal Mass

OBJECTIVES

Patients with adnexal masses suspicious for malignancy benefit from referral to oncology specialists during presurgical assessment of the mass. OVA1 is a multivariate assay using a 5-biomarker panel which offers high overall and early-stage sensitivity. However, OVA1 has a high false positive rate for benign masses. Overa, a second generation multivariate index assay was developed to reduce the false positive rate. Our objective was to use Overa as a reflex for OVA1 and increase specificity.

METHODS

OVA1 cutoff scores were established to define patients into three categories: low, intermediate, and high cancer risk. Samples with intermediate risk OVA1 scores were reflexed to the Overa and defined as high or low risk. This protocol was tested with 1,035 prospectively collected serum samples, and validated with an independent prospectively collected sample set (N = 207).

RESULTS

35% of samples had intermediate OVA1 scores. Reflexing these to Overa eliminated 58% of the false positives and improved the overall specificity from 50% to 72%. This finding was confirmed in the independent dataset, in which the specificity increased from 56% to 73%.

CONCLUSIONS

Reflexing samples with intermediate OVA1 scores significantly decreases the false positive rate, thereby reducing unnecessary surgical referrals.

Salvaging Detection of Early-Stage Ovarian Malignancies When CA125 Is Not Informative

Background: Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic cancer, with no recommended screening test to assist with early detection. Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is a serum biomarker commonly used by clinicians to assess preoperative cancer risk, but it underperforms in premenopausal women, early-stage malignancies, and several histologic subtypes. OVA1 is a multivariate index assay that combines CA125 and four other serum proteins to assess the malignant risk of an adnexal mass. Objective: To evaluate the performance of OVA1 in a cohort of patients with low-risk serum CA125 values. Study Design: We analyzed patient data from previous collections (N = 2305, prevalence = 4.5%) where CA125 levels were at or below 67 units/milliliter (U/mL) for pre-menopausal women and 35 U/mL for post-menopausal women. We compare the performance of OVA1 to CA125 in classifying the risk of malignancy in this cohort, including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. Results: The overall sensitivity of OVA1 in patients with a low-risk serum CA125 was 59% with a false-positive rate of 30%. OVA1 detected over 50% of ovarian malignancies in premenopausal women despite a low-risk serum CA125. OVA1 also correctly identified 63% of early-stage cancers missed by CA125. The most common epithelial ovarian cancer subtypes in the study population were mucinous (25%) and serous (23%) carcinomas. Despite a low-risk CA125, OVA1 successfully detected 83% of serous, 58% of mucinous, and 50% of clear cell ovarian cancers. Conclusions: As a standalone test, CA125 misses a significant number of ovarian malignancies that can be detected by OVA1. This is particularly important for premenopausal women and early-stage cancers, which have a much better long-term survival than late-stage malignancies. Using OVA1 in the setting of a normal serum CA125 can help identify at-risk ovarian tumors for referral to a gynecologic oncologist, potentially improving overall survival.

Low-risk multivariate index assay scores, physician referral and surgical choices in women with adnexal masses

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of Multivariate Index Assay (MIA OVA1) by gynecologists and determine referral practices and surgical decision making for women with adnexal masses and low-risk MIA OVA1 scores.

METHODS

Information on patients who received an OVA1 test was collected retrospectively from 22 gynecologic practices through a chart review. Referral patterns were examined for patients with low-risk OVA1 results prior to first surgical intervention. Chart reviews were from a variety of practice and hospital settings representing major geographic regions within the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 282 independent patient charts were reviewed. Low-risk results were found for 146 patients (52%). Surgery was performed on 82 (56%) patients with low-risk scores. The referral rate to specialty care was 21% (17/82) for low-risk OVA1 patients. Three low-malignant potential tumors were identified in the low-risk patients, with no cases of invasive malignancy. Eighty-six percent of the surgeries performed on low-risk OVA1 patients were minimally invasive. In 44% of the low-risk OVA1 patients, no surgical intervention was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of low-risk OVA1 patients were not referred to a gynecologic oncologist prior to surgery, indicating gynecologists may use MIA OVA1 along with clinical and radiographic findings to appropriately retain patients for their care. This practice is safe and may be cost-saving, with patient satisfaction implications.

Scoring systems for the evaluation of adnexal masses nature: current knowledge and clinical applications

Adnexal masses are a common finding in women, with 20% of them developing at least one pelvic mass during their lifetime. There are more than 30 different subtypes of adnexal tumours, with multiple different subcategories, and the correct characterisation of the pelvic masses is of paramount importance to guide the correct management. On that basis, different algorithms and scoring systems have been developed to guide the clinical assessment. The first scoring system implemented into the clinical practice was the Risk of Malignancy Index, which combines ultrasound evaluation, menopausal status, and serum CA-125 levels. Today, current guidelines regarding female patients with adnexal masses include the application of International Ovarian Tumours Analysis simple rules, logistic regression model 1 (LR1) and LR2, OVERA, cancer ovarii non-invasive assessment of treating strategy, and assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa. In this scenario, the choice of the scoring system for the discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian tumours can be complex when approaching patients with adnexal masses. This review aims to summarise the available evidence regarding the different scoring systems to provide a complete overview of the topic.

Economic Impact of Increased Utilization of Multivariate Assay Testing to Guide the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: Implications for Payers

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer among women, but ranks fifth in cancer-related causes of death, the majority of which are detected in late stages, after the cancer has metastasized. The CA125 test is the standard of care for assessing suspicious pelvic masses. However, the primary use of CA125 is to monitor treatment progress rather than to screen for disease, and its sensitivity is exceedingly low, unlike the multivariate assay OVA1. A cost-effective treatment of ovarian cancer requires early and accurate diagnosis of pelvic masses and reduced referrals of patients with benign tumors to a gynecologic oncologist.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the economic impact of increased utilization of a multivariate assay, such as OVA1, to guide the treatment of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The study population was drawn from Medicare and commercial health plan claims data. A budget impact model was constructed to estimate the economic consequences of substituting the multivariate assay OVA1 to replace the single biomarker assay CA125 to assess the likelihood of pelvic mass malignancy in premenopausal and/or postmenopausal women. All patients selected for the analysis had CA125 testing before surgical intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 92,843 health plan members were included for analysis, comprising 48,113 commercially insured members and 44,730 Medicare beneficiaries. Estimates of future health plan expenditures, which were calculated from base-case assumptions, projected overall savings of $0.05 per-member per-month (PMPM) for commercially insured members and $0.01 PMPM for Medicare beneficiaries as a result of increased utilization of OVA1. Sensitivity analysis revealed potential savings of up to $0.17 PMPM for commercially insured patients and up to $0.05 for Medicare beneficiaries.

CONCLUSION

The results of the budget impact model support the use of OVA1 instead of CA125 by indicating that modest cost-savings can be achieved, while reaping the clinical benefits of improved diagnostic accuracy, early disease detection, and reductions in multiple, and possibly unnecessary, referrals to gynecologic oncologists.

Current clinical application of serum biomarkers to detect ovarian cancer

For the last decades, hundreds of potential serum biomarkers have been assessed in diagnosing of ovarian cancer including the wide spectrum of cytokines, growth factors, adhesion molecules, proteases, hormones, coagulation factors, acute phase reactants, and apoptosis factors but except CA125 none of them have been applied to everyday clinical practice. Nowadays, the growing number of evidence suggests that the classic marker CA125 should be accompanied by HE4 and in fact, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) is becoming more and more widespread in clinical practice for the evaluation of adnexal masses. Early ovarian cancer is often asymptomatic, so the challenge still exists to develop serum markers suitable for early diagnosis and screening. Current knowledge strongly points to different mechanisms of pathogenesis, genetic disturbances and clinical course of major histological subtypes of ovarian cancer. Thus, future biomarker/multimarker panels should take into consideration the implications of different molecular patterns and biological behavior of various subtypes of ovarian cancer. Very promising are studies on miRNAs – small non-protein coding gene-regulatory RNA molecules functionally involved in the pathogenesis of cancers acting as oncogenes (oncomirs) or tumor suppressors. The studies devoted to ovarian cancer tissue miRNA profiling have shown that miRNAs could be useful in diagnosing and predicting the OC outcome. They also confirmed that OC is a highly heterogeneous disease, gathering four distinct histological tumor subtypes characterized not only by distinct origin, behavior and response to chemotherapy but also by different patterns of miRNA expression.

The effect of ovarian imaging on the clinical interpretation of a multivariate index assay

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between imaging and the multivariate index assay (MIA) in the prediction of the likelihood of ovarian malignancy before surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Subjects were recruited in 2 related prospective, multiinstitutional trials that involved 44 sites across the United States. Women had ovarian imaging, biomarker analysis, and surgery for an adnexal mass. Ovarian tumors were classified as high risk for solid or papillary morphologic condition on imaging study. Biomarker and imaging results were correlated with surgical findings.

RESULTS

Of the 1110 women who were enrolled with an adnexal mass on imaging, 1024 cases were evaluable. There were 255 malignant and 769 benign tumors. High-risk findings were present in 46% of 1232 imaging tests and 61% of 1024 MIA tests. The risk of malignancy increased with rising MIA scores; similarly, the likelihood of malignancy was higher for high-risk, compared with low-risk, imaging. Sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of malignancy were 98% (95% CI, 92-99) and 31% (95% CI, 27-34) for ultrasound or MIA; 68% (95% CI, 58-77) and 75% (95% CI, 72-78) for ultrasound and MIA, respectively. For computed tomography scan or MIA, sensitivity was 97% (95% CI, 92-99) and specificity was 22% (95% CI, 16-28); the sensitivity and specificity for computed tomography scan and MIA were 71% (95% CI, 62-79) and 70% (95% CI, 63-76). Only 1.6% of ovarian tumors were malignant when both tests indicated low risk. A logistic regression model to predict risk of malignancy is presented.

CONCLUSION

An understanding of how pelvic imaging influences the MIA score can help clinicians better interpret the malignant risk of an ovarian tumor.

Multianalyte assay systems in the differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

The efficient triage of women diagnosed with a pelvic mass presents a current area of unmet need. Unnecessary surgical intervention performed on patients at a decreased risk of malignancy represents a significant source of preventable morbidity, anxiety and cost. Likewise, delayed or overlooked referral of patients harboring malignant tumors is strongly associated with diminished outcomes. Current tools including imaging modalities and the CA 125 blood test are of insufficient accuracy to overcome these challenges. The use of multianalyte assays systems which include additional biomarkers capable of complementing the performance of CA 125 may offer the best hope of improvement.

AREAS COVERED

Recent findings regarding the use of multianalyte biomarker panels for the differential diagnosis of a pelvic mass are reviewed and discussed. Particular attention is paid to to the FDA approved ROMA and OVA1 tests. The development, validation, recent evaluation and comparative performances of these two tests are reviewed in detail.

EXPERT OPINION

The performances achieved by the ROMA and OVA1 diagnostic tests represent significant milestones in the application of multianalyte assay systems into standard clinical practice. The overall impact and cost-effectiveness of widespread clinical use of these tools remains to be evaluated.