Literature DB >> 19879639

Current state of biomarker development for clinical application in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Richard G Moore1, Shannon MacLaughlan, Robert C Bast.   

Abstract

Each year in the United States over 15,000 women die of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and 22,000 are diagnosed with the disease. The incidence of ovarian cancer has remained stable over the past decade however, survival rates have improved steadily. Increases in survival rates can be attributed to the advances in surgical management, development of effective cytotoxic drugs and the route of administration of chemotherapy. Ovarian cancer survival rates could also be improved through screening and early detection. Disappointingly, effective screening methods have not been established and continue to be elusive. Historically the goal of a screening test was to achieve a positive predictive value (PPV) greater than 10% in order be considered cost effective and have an acceptable risk for the population being screened. Despite the inability of currently available screening algorithms to achieve the desired PPV there may be an advantage in producing a stage migration to lower stages at the time of diagnoses, thereby resulting in improved survival. Equally important recent studies have demonstrated that women who have their initial surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists, and women who have their surgeries at centers experienced in the treatment of ovarian cancer have higher survival rates. For these reasons it is essential that all women at high risk for ovarian cancer receive their initial care by gynecologic oncologists and at centers with multidisciplinary teams experienced in the optimal care of ovarian cancer patients. With this in mind, methods that facilitate the accurate triage of women who will ultimately be diagnosed with ovarian cancer could play a significant role in improving survival rates for these patients. This review article will examine the current state of biomarker use in ovarian cancer screening, risk assessment and for monitoring ovarian cancer patients. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19879639      PMCID: PMC3134885          DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  63 in total

1.  Defining response of ovarian carcinoma to initial chemotherapy according to serum CA 125.

Authors:  G J Rustin; A E Nelstrop; P McClean; M F Brady; W P McGuire; W J Hoskins; H Mitchell; H E Lambert
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses.

Authors:  S Tingulstad; B Hagen; F E Skjeldestad; M Onsrud; T Kiserud; T Halvorsen; K Nustad
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1996-08

3.  The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals.

Authors:  S Tingulstad; B Hagen; F E Skjeldestad; T Halvorsen; K Nustad; M Onsrud
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Defining progression of ovarian carcinoma during follow-up according to CA 125: a North Thames Ovary Group Study.

Authors:  G J Rustin; A E Nelstrop; M K Tuxen; H E Lambert
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  What is a normal CA125 level?

Authors:  T Alagoz; R E Buller; M Berman; B Anderson; A Manetta; P DiSaia
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Serum tumor marker immunoassays in gynecologic oncology: establishment of reference values.

Authors:  G G Bon; P Kenemans; R Verstraeten; G J van Kamp; J Hilgers
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and follow-up.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 8.  Management of the adnexal mass.

Authors:  J P Curtin
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Toward an optimal algorithm for ovarian cancer screening with longitudinal tumor markers.

Authors:  S J Skates; F J Xu; Y H Yu; K Sjövall; N Einhorn; Y Chang; R C Bast; R C Knapp
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Prospective multicenter study on CA 125 in postmenopausal pelvic masses.

Authors:  T Maggino; A Gadducci; V D'Addario; S Pecorelli; A Lissoni; M Stella; C Romagnolo; M Federghini; S Zucca; D Trio
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.482

View more
  24 in total

1.  Novel monoclonal antibodies against the proximal (carboxy-terminal) portions of MUC16.

Authors:  Thapi Dharma Rao; Kay J Park; Peter Smith-Jones; Alexia Iasonos; Irina Linkov; Robert A Soslow; David R Spriggs
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2010-10

2.  Serum levels of the ovarian cancer biomarker HE4 are decreased in pregnancy and increase with age.

Authors:  Richard G Moore; Michael Craig Miller; Elizabeth E Eklund; Karen H Lu; Robert C Bast; Geralyn Lambert-Messerlian
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Proteomic biomarkers apolipoprotein A1, truncated transthyretin and connective tissue activating protein III enhance the sensitivity of CA125 for detecting early stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Charlotte H Clarke; Christine Yip; Donna Badgwell; Eric T Fung; Kevin R Coombes; Zhen Zhang; Karen H Lu; Robert C Bast
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-06-25       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Comparison of candidate serologic markers for type I and type II ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Dan Lu; Elisabetta Kuhn; Robert E Bristow; Robert L Giuntoli; Susanne Krüger Kjær; Ie-Ming Shih; Richard B S Roden
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  HE4 a novel tumour marker for ovarian cancer: comparison with CA 125 and ROMA algorithm in patients with gynaecological diseases.

Authors:  Rafael Molina; Jose M Escudero; Jose M Augé; Xavier Filella; Laura Foj; Aureli Torné; Jose Lejarcegui; Jaume Pahisa
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2011-08-24

Review 6.  Adverse events associated with complementary and alternative medicine use in ovarian cancer patients.

Authors:  Erin S Sweet; Leanna J Standish; Barbara A Goff; M Robyn Andersen
Journal:  Integr Cancer Ther       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 3.279

7.  Systematic CpG islands methylation profiling of genes in the wnt pathway in epithelial ovarian cancer identifies biomarkers of progression-free survival.

Authors:  Wei Dai; Jens M Teodoridis; Constanze Zeller; Janet Graham; Jenny Hersey; James M Flanagan; Euan Stronach; David W Millan; Nadeem Siddiqui; Jim Paul; Robert Brown
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Prolactin Receptor-Mediated Internalization of Imaging Agents Detects Epithelial Ovarian Cancer with Enhanced Sensitivity and Specificity.

Authors:  Karthik M Sundaram; Yilin Zhang; Anirban K Mitra; Jean-Louis K Kouadio; Katja Gwin; Anthony A Kossiakoff; Brian B Roman; Ernst Lengyel; Joseph A Piccirilli
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 12.701

9.  Membrane-type I matrix metalloproteinase-dependent ectodomain shedding of mucin16/ CA-125 on ovarian cancer cells modulates adhesion and invasion of peritoneal mesothelium.

Authors:  Lana Bruney; Kaitlynn C Conley; Natalie M Moss; Yueying Liu; M Sharon Stack
Journal:  Biol Chem       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.915

Review 10.  In 2014, can we do better than CA125 in the early detection of ovarian cancer?

Authors:  Joshua G Cohen; Matthew White; Ana Cruz; Robin Farias-Eisner
Journal:  World J Biol Chem       Date:  2014-08-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.