OBJECTIVE: The low prevalence of ovarian cancer demands both high sensitivity (>75%) and specificity (99.6%) to achieve a positive predictive value of 10% for successful early detection. Utilizing a two stage strategy where serum marker(s) prompt the performance of transvaginal sonography (TVS) in a limited number (2%) of women could reduce the requisite specificity for serum markers to 98%. We have attempted to improve sensitivity by combining CA125 with proteomic markers. METHODS: Sera from 41 patients with early stage (I/II) and 51 with late stage (III/IV) epithelial ovarian cancer, 40 with benign disease and 99 healthy individuals, were analyzed to measure 7 proteins [Apolipoprotein A1 (Apo-A1), truncated transthyretin (TT), transferrin, hepcidin, ß-2-microglobulin (ß2M), Connective Tissue Activating Protein III (CTAPIII), and Inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain 4 (ITIH4)]. Statistical models were fit by logistic regression, followed by optimization of factors retained in the models determined by optimizing the Akaike Information Criterion. A validation set included 136 stage I ovarian cancers, 140 benign pelvic masses and 174 healthy controls. RESULTS: In a training set analysis, the 3 most effective biomarkers (Apo-A1, TT and CTAPIII) exhibited 54% sensitivity at 98% specificity, CA125 alone produced 68% sensitivity and the combination increased sensitivity to 88%. In a validation set, the marker panel plus CA125 produced a sensitivity of 84% at 98% specificity (P=0.015, McNemar's test). CONCLUSION: Combining a panel of proteomic markers with CA125 could provide a first step in a sequential two-stage strategy with TVS for early detection of ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The low prevalence of ovarian cancer demands both high sensitivity (>75%) and specificity (99.6%) to achieve a positive predictive value of 10% for successful early detection. Utilizing a two stage strategy where serum marker(s) prompt the performance of transvaginal sonography (TVS) in a limited number (2%) of women could reduce the requisite specificity for serum markers to 98%. We have attempted to improve sensitivity by combining CA125 with proteomic markers. METHODS: Sera from 41 patients with early stage (I/II) and 51 with late stage (III/IV) epithelial ovarian cancer, 40 with benign disease and 99 healthy individuals, were analyzed to measure 7 proteins [Apolipoprotein A1 (Apo-A1), truncated transthyretin (TT), transferrin, hepcidin, ß-2-microglobulin (ß2M), Connective Tissue Activating Protein III (CTAPIII), and Inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain 4 (ITIH4)]. Statistical models were fit by logistic regression, followed by optimization of factors retained in the models determined by optimizing the Akaike Information Criterion. A validation set included 136 stage I ovarian cancers, 140 benign pelvic masses and 174 healthy controls. RESULTS: In a training set analysis, the 3 most effective biomarkers (Apo-A1, TT and CTAPIII) exhibited 54% sensitivity at 98% specificity, CA125 alone produced 68% sensitivity and the combination increased sensitivity to 88%. In a validation set, the marker panel plus CA125 produced a sensitivity of 84% at 98% specificity (P=0.015, McNemar's test). CONCLUSION: Combining a panel of proteomic markers with CA125 could provide a first step in a sequential two-stage strategy with TVS for early detection of ovarian cancer.
Authors: Zoya Yurkovetsky; Steven Skates; Aleksey Lomakin; Brian Nolen; Trenton Pulsipher; Francesmary Modugno; Jeffrey Marks; Andrew Godwin; Elieser Gorelik; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon; Karen Lu; Donna Badgwell; Robert C Bast; Anna E Lokshin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Rachel Hallett; Andy Ryan; Matthew Burnell; Aarti Sharma; Sara Lewis; Susan Davies; Susan Philpott; Alberto Lopes; Keith Godfrey; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Ian Scott; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Lesley Fallowfield; Naveena Singh; Anne Dawnay; Steven J Skates; Mahesh Parmar; Ian Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: R C Bast; T L Klug; E St John; E Jenison; J M Niloff; H Lazarus; R S Berkowitz; T Leavitt; C T Griffiths; L Parker; V R Zurawski; R C Knapp Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1983-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer M Watson; Photini F Rice; Samuel L Marion; Molly A Brewer; John R Davis; Jeffrey J Rodriguez; Urs Utzinger; Patricia B Hoyer; Jennifer K Barton Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Suzanne Miyamoto; L Renee Ruhaak; Carol Stroble; Michelle R Salemi; Brett Phinney; Carlito B Lebrilla; Gary S Leiserowitz Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Wouter Wegdam; Carmen A Argmann; Gertjan Kramer; Johannes P Vissers; Marrije R Buist; Gemma G Kenter; Johannes M F G Aerts; Danielle Meijer; Perry D Moerland Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 3.240