OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of ovarian cancer risk on the performance of the serum biomarkers mesothelin, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and CA125. METHODS: We measured mesothelin, HE4, and CA125 levels from women with invasive ovarian cancer (n = 143), benign gynecologic conditions (n = 124), and controls (n = 344). Demographic, epidemiologic, reproductive, medical, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. Pedigree and BRCA 1/2 test results were used to stratify women into average and high-risk groups. The diagnostic accuracy of each biomarker was characterized using receiver operating characteristic curve methods. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not vary by risk or case status. The distribution of stage and histology was similar in average and high-risk women. All three markers discriminated ovarian cancer cases from risk-matched healthy and benign controls. Marker performance did not vary by risk status. The sensitivity at 95% specificity for discriminating cases from risk-matched healthy control women in the average and high-risk groups, respectively, was 53.9% and 39.0% for mesothelin, 80.4% and 87.8% for HE4, and 79.4% and 82.9% for CA125. The performance of the markers was not as robust when cases were compared with benign controls. Area under the curve values for cases versus healthy and benign controls did not vary by risk status. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of serum mesothelin, HE4, and CA 125 levels to discriminate ovarian cancer cases from healthy and benign controls is not influenced by risk status. Our findings support the pursuit of additional studies evaluating the early detection potential of these markers in high-risk populations.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of ovarian cancer risk on the performance of the serum biomarkers mesothelin, humanepididymis protein 4 (HE4), and CA125. METHODS: We measured mesothelin, HE4, and CA125 levels from women with invasive ovarian cancer (n = 143), benign gynecologic conditions (n = 124), and controls (n = 344). Demographic, epidemiologic, reproductive, medical, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. Pedigree and BRCA 1/2 test results were used to stratify women into average and high-risk groups. The diagnostic accuracy of each biomarker was characterized using receiver operating characteristic curve methods. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not vary by risk or case status. The distribution of stage and histology was similar in average and high-risk women. All three markers discriminated ovarian cancer cases from risk-matched healthy and benign controls. Marker performance did not vary by risk status. The sensitivity at 95% specificity for discriminating cases from risk-matched healthy control women in the average and high-risk groups, respectively, was 53.9% and 39.0% for mesothelin, 80.4% and 87.8% for HE4, and 79.4% and 82.9% for CA125. The performance of the markers was not as robust when cases were compared with benign controls. Area under the curve values for cases versus healthy and benign controls did not vary by risk status. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of serum mesothelin, HE4, and CA 125 levels to discriminate ovarian cancer cases from healthy and benign controls is not influenced by risk status. Our findings support the pursuit of additional studies evaluating the early detection potential of these markers in high-risk populations.
Authors: R C Bast; D Badgwell; Z Lu; R Marquez; D Rosen; J Liu; K A Baggerly; E N Atkinson; S Skates; Z Zhang; A Lokshin; U Menon; I Jacobs; K Lu Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: W Burke; M Daly; J Garber; J Botkin; M J Kahn; P Lynch; A McTiernan; K Offit; J Perlman; G Petersen; E Thomson; C Varricchio Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-03-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ronny Drapkin; Hans Henning von Horsten; Yafang Lin; Samuel C Mok; Christopher P Crum; William R Welch; Jonathan L Hecht Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Daniel G Rosen; Lin Wang; J Neeley Atkinson; Yinhua Yu; Karen H Lu; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Ingegerd Hellstrom; Samuel C Mok; Jinsong Liu; Robert C Bast Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-08-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: M Jim Yen; Chih-Yi Hsu; Tsui-Lien Mao; T-C Wu; Richard Roden; Tian-Li Wang; Ie-Ming Shih Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jenette Creaney; Ivonne van Bruggen; Michelle Hof; Amanda Segal; Arthur W Musk; Nick de Klerk; Nora Horick; Steven J Skates; Bruce W S Robinson Journal: Chest Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Ingegerd Hellstrom; Patrick J Heagerty; Elizabeth M Swisher; Pu Liu; Jade Jaffar; Kathy Agnew; Karl Erik Hellstrom Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: M Robyn Andersen; Barbara A Goff; Kimberly A Lowe; Nathalie Scholler; Lindsay Bergan; Charles W Drescher; Pamela Paley; Nicole Urban Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-11-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nicole Urban; Jason Thorpe; Beth Y Karlan; Martin W McIntosh; Melanie R Palomares; Mary B Daly; Pamela Paley; Charles W Drescher Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Anna Fritz-Rdzanek; Wojciech Grzybowski; Jarosław Beta; Andrzej Durczyński; Artur Jakimiuk Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 2.967