Lee E Moore1, Ruth M Pfeiffer, Zhen Zhang, Karen H Lu, Eric T Fung, Robert C Bast. 1. Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. moorele@mail.nih.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When epithelial ovarian cancer is detected at an early stage (I-II), the 5-year survival rate is between 70% and 90%; whereas, when it is detected in late stages (III-IV), the 5-year survival rate slips to <30%. In a previous report, the authors observed that proteomic biomarkers and cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) exhibited a sensitivity of 84% at a specificity of 98% for identifying sera from patients who had stage I disease at the time of surgery, significantly improving the sensitivity of CA 125 alone. The challenge, however, is to detect ovarian cancer before clinical diagnosis. The current study was part of a large effort to compare different multimarker biomarker panels for the early detection of ovarian cancer. Several biomarkers were evaluated alone and in combination with CA 125 in prediagnostically collected sera from women in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. METHODS: Proximal prediagnostic sera from 118 women with ovarian cancer (cases) and from 951 age-matched women (controls) (8 controls per case, including 4 randomly selected from the general population, 2 with CA 125 levels ≥ 35 U/mL, and 2 with a positive family history of breast/ovarian cancer) were analyzed using the CA 125 immunoassay and surface-enhanced laser desorption and ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry to measure 7 proteins (apolipoprotein A1, truncated transthyretin, transferrin, hepcidin, β-2 microglobulin, connective tissue activating protein III), and interalpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy-chain 4). Data were analyzed by 2 statistical strategies that combined the 7 markers and CA 125 into 1 predictive score for disease classification. RESULTS: CA 125 levels were elevated (≥ 35 U/mL) in 61.5% of 65 patients who had CA 125 data available from samples that were collected <12 months before cancer diagnosis; however, levels of the additional 7 biomarkers were not different between cases and the 3 control groups individually or combined. Two panels that combined CA 125 and the 7 biomarkers failed to improve the sensitivity of CA 125 alone. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to earlier findings from analyzes of postdiagnostically collected sera, the addition of 7 biomarkers to CA 125 did not improve sensitivity for preclinical diagnosis beyond CA 125 alone.
BACKGROUND: When epithelial ovarian cancer is detected at an early stage (I-II), the 5-year survival rate is between 70% and 90%; whereas, when it is detected in late stages (III-IV), the 5-year survival rate slips to <30%. In a previous report, the authors observed that proteomic biomarkers and cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) exhibited a sensitivity of 84% at a specificity of 98% for identifying sera from patients who had stage I disease at the time of surgery, significantly improving the sensitivity of CA 125 alone. The challenge, however, is to detect ovarian cancer before clinical diagnosis. The current study was part of a large effort to compare different multimarker biomarker panels for the early detection of ovarian cancer. Several biomarkers were evaluated alone and in combination with CA 125 in prediagnostically collected sera from women in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. METHODS: Proximal prediagnostic sera from 118 women with ovarian cancer (cases) and from 951 age-matched women (controls) (8 controls per case, including 4 randomly selected from the general population, 2 with CA 125 levels ≥ 35 U/mL, and 2 with a positive family history of breast/ovarian cancer) were analyzed using the CA 125 immunoassay and surface-enhanced laser desorption and ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry to measure 7 proteins (apolipoprotein A1, truncated transthyretin, transferrin, hepcidin, β-2 microglobulin, connective tissue activating protein III), and interalpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy-chain 4). Data were analyzed by 2 statistical strategies that combined the 7 markers and CA 125 into 1 predictive score for disease classification. RESULTS:CA 125 levels were elevated (≥ 35 U/mL) in 61.5% of 65 patients who had CA 125 data available from samples that were collected <12 months before cancer diagnosis; however, levels of the additional 7 biomarkers were not different between cases and the 3 control groups individually or combined. Two panels that combined CA 125 and the 7 biomarkers failed to improve the sensitivity of CA 125 alone. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to earlier findings from analyzes of postdiagnostically collected sera, the addition of 7 biomarkers to CA 125 did not improve sensitivity for preclinical diagnosis beyond CA 125 alone.
Authors: R C Bast; F P Siegal; C Runowicz; T L Klug; V R Zurawski; D Schonholz; C J Cohen; R C Knapp Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1985-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Daniel W Cramer; Robert C Bast; Christine D Berg; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Andrew K Godwin; Patricia Hartge; Anna E Lokshin; Karen H Lu; Martin W McIntosh; Gil Mor; Christos Patriotis; Paul F Pinsky; Mark D Thornquist; Nathalie Scholler; Steven J Skates; Patrick M Sluss; Sudhir Srivastava; David C Ward; Zhen Zhang; Claire S Zhu; Nicole Urban Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-03
Authors: Lee E Moore; Eric T Fung; Marielena McGuire; Charles C Rabkin; Annette Molinaro; Zheng Wang; Fujun Zhang; Jing Wang; Christine Yip; Xiao-Ying Meng; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Eric T Fung; Tai-Tung Yip; Lee Lomas; Zheng Wang; Christine Yip; Xiao-Ying Meng; Shanhua Lin; Fujun Zhang; Zhen Zhang; Daniel W Chan; Scot R Weinberger Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-07-10 Impact factor: 7.396
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: Zhen Zhang; Robert C Bast; Yinhua Yu; Jinong Li; Lori J Sokoll; Alex J Rai; Jason M Rosenzweig; Bonnie Cameron; Young Y Wang; Xiao-Ying Meng; Andrew Berchuck; Carolien Van Haaften-Day; Neville F Hacker; Henk W A de Bruijn; Ate G J van der Zee; Ian J Jacobs; Eric T Fung; Daniel W Chan Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
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: Jung-Hyun Rho; Jon J Ladd; Christopher I Li; John D Potter; Yuzheng Zhang; David Shelley; David Shibata; Domenico Coppola; Hiroyuki Yamada; Hidenori Toyoda; Toshifumi Tada; Takashi Kumada; Dean E Brenner; Samir M Hanash; Paul D Lampe Journal: Gut Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Stephanie Shao; Benjamin A Neely; Tzu-Cheg Kao; Janet Eckhaus; Jolie Bourgeois; Jasmin Brooks; Elizabeth E Jones; Richard R Drake; Kangmin Zhu Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Charity L Washam; Stephanie D Byrum; Kim Leitzel; Suhail M Ali; Alan J Tackett; Dana Gaddy; Suzanne E Sundermann; Allan Lipton; Larry J Suva Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 4.254