OBJECTIVES: The serum tumor marker CA 125 is elevated in most clinically advanced ovarian carcinomas. Because these elevations may precede clinical detection by a year or more, CA 125 is potentially useful for early detection as part of an ovarian cancer screening program. However, CA 125 is often not elevated in clinically detected cancer and is frequently elevated in women with benign ovarian tumors. CA 125 may be more useful in conjunction with one or more other tumor biomarkers. Additional markers could play a role if, when used with CA 125, they identify some carcinomas missed by CA 125 (i.e., they improve sensitivity), rule out false positives (i.e., improve specificity), or are able to detect the same cancers earlier. METHODS: We have evaluated a composite marker (CM) that combines CA 125 and a previously described soluble mesothelin related (SMR) marker in sera from 52 ovarian cancer cases, 43 controls with benign ovarian tumors, and 220 normal risk controls who participated in a screening program, including 25 healthy women having two serum samples collected 1 year apart. CA 125, SMR, and CM were evaluated for their ability to identify clinical disease and for their temporal stability, which assesses their ability to obtain even greater sensitivity when used in a longitudinal screening program. RESULTS: CM has the best sensitivity, with specificity equal to CA 125. Importantly, CM has temporal stability at least as high as CA 125. CONCLUSION: The CM may outperform CA 125 alone in a longitudinal screening program as well as in a diagnostic setting.
OBJECTIVES: The serum tumor marker CA 125 is elevated in most clinically advanced ovarian carcinomas. Because these elevations may precede clinical detection by a year or more, CA 125 is potentially useful for early detection as part of an ovarian cancer screening program. However, CA 125 is often not elevated in clinically detected cancer and is frequently elevated in women with benign ovarian tumors. CA 125 may be more useful in conjunction with one or more other tumor biomarkers. Additional markers could play a role if, when used with CA 125, they identify some carcinomas missed by CA 125 (i.e., they improve sensitivity), rule out false positives (i.e., improve specificity), or are able to detect the same cancers earlier. METHODS: We have evaluated a composite marker (CM) that combines CA 125 and a previously described soluble mesothelin related (SMR) marker in sera from 52 ovarian cancer cases, 43 controls with benign ovarian tumors, and 220 normal risk controls who participated in a screening program, including 25 healthy women having two serum samples collected 1 year apart. CA 125, SMR, and CM were evaluated for their ability to identify clinical disease and for their temporal stability, which assesses their ability to obtain even greater sensitivity when used in a longitudinal screening program. RESULTS: CM has the best sensitivity, with specificity equal to CA 125. Importantly, CM has temporal stability at least as high as CA 125. CONCLUSION: The CM may outperform CA 125 alone in a longitudinal screening program as well as in a diagnostic setting.
Authors: D K Pauler; U Menon; M McIntosh; H L Symecko; S J Skates; I J Jacobs Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: N Scholler; N Fu; Y Yang; Z Ye; G E Goodman; K E Hellström; I Hellström Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1999-09-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: I J Jacobs; S J Skates; N MacDonald; U Menon; A N Rosenthal; A P Davies; R Woolas; A R Jeyarajah; K Sibley; D G Lowe; D H Oram Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-04-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Z Zhang; S D Barnhill; H Zhang; F Xu; Y Yu; I Jacobs; R P Woolas; A Berchuck; K R Madyastha; R C Bast Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sheng Pan; Ru Chen; Randall E Brand; Sarah Hawley; Yasuko Tamura; Philip R Gafken; Brian P Milless; David R Goodlett; John Rush; Teresa A Brentnall Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Nathalie Scholler; Kimberly A Lowe; Lindsay A Bergan; Archana V Kampani; Vivian Ng; Robin M Forrest; Jason D Thorpe; Jenny A Gross; Barbara M Garvik; Ronny Drapkin; Garnet L Anderson; Nicole Urban Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lynn M Amon; Wendy Law; Matthew P Fitzgibbon; Jennifer A Gross; Kathy O'Briant; Amelia Peterson; Charles Drescher; Daniel B Martin; Martin McIntosh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Garnet L Anderson; Martin McIntosh; Lieling Wu; Matt Barnett; Gary Goodman; Jason D Thorpe; Lindsay Bergan; Mark D Thornquist; Nathalie Scholler; Nam Kim; Kathy O'Briant; Charles Drescher; Nicole Urban Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 13.506