OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of HE4 and CA125 in patients presenting with suspicious malignant ovarian cysts. We especially wanted to investigate the levels of HE4 and CA125 with regard to the gene and histology-unifying model of type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: Plasma from 373 women presenting with a suspicious malignant ovarian cyst was collected prior to surgery. Histology, grade, and stage were determined according to FIGO-classification. HE4 and CA125 were analyzed using ELISA, and the markers were evaluated for significance separately and in combination. Receiver operating curves, the area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity were estimated. RESULTS: The combination of HE4 and CA125 resulted in the best diagnostic power in comparing benign tumors to EOC (ROC AUC 0.93, sensitivity 94.4% at 75% specificity) for type II. Diagnostic power in type I (ROC AUC 0.79, sensitivity 61.9% at 75% specificity) was less impressive. In particular, mucinous benign vs. malignant tumors could not significantly be separated by the dual marker combination. Impressively high ROC AUC 0.99 was found for the late stage type II EOC with 100% sensitivity at 75% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: HE4 and CA125 have a good ability to diagnose the more aggressive type II tumors but a poor diagnostic ability when patients are presenting with slow-growing type I in the early stage. Our results support the hypothesis that EOC should be looked upon as several different diseases, and that we lack biomarkers for sub-groups of EOC.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of HE4 and CA125 in patients presenting with suspicious malignant ovarian cysts. We especially wanted to investigate the levels of HE4 and CA125 with regard to the gene and histology-unifying model of type I and type II epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: Plasma from 373 women presenting with a suspicious malignant ovarian cyst was collected prior to surgery. Histology, grade, and stage were determined according to FIGO-classification. HE4 and CA125 were analyzed using ELISA, and the markers were evaluated for significance separately and in combination. Receiver operating curves, the area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity were estimated. RESULTS: The combination of HE4 and CA125 resulted in the best diagnostic power in comparing benign tumors to EOC (ROC AUC 0.93, sensitivity 94.4% at 75% specificity) for type II. Diagnostic power in type I (ROC AUC 0.79, sensitivity 61.9% at 75% specificity) was less impressive. In particular, mucinous benign vs. malignant tumors could not significantly be separated by the dual marker combination. Impressively high ROC AUC 0.99 was found for the late stage type II EOC with 100% sensitivity at 75% specificity. CONCLUSIONS:HE4 and CA125 have a good ability to diagnose the more aggressive type II tumors but a poor diagnostic ability when patients are presenting with slow-growing type I in the early stage. Our results support the hypothesis that EOC should be looked upon as several different diseases, and that we lack biomarkers for sub-groups of EOC.
Authors: James P Beirne; Alan Gilmore; Caitríona E McInerney; Aideen Roddy; W Glenn McCluggage; Ian J G Harley; M Abdullah Alvi; Kevin M Prise; Darragh G McArt; Paul B Mullan Journal: Comput Struct Biotechnol J Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 6.155
Authors: Kathryn L Terry; Helena Schock; Renée T Fortner; Anika Hüsing; Raina N Fichorova; Hidemi S Yamamoto; Allison F Vitonis; Theron Johnson; Kim Overvad; Anne Tjønneland; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Sylvie Mesrine; Gianluca Severi; Laure Dossus; Sabina Rinaldi; Heiner Boeing; Vassiliki Benetou; Pagona Lagiou; Antonia Trichopoulou; Vittorio Krogh; Elisabetta Kuhn; Salvatore Panico; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Petra H Peeters; Inger Torhild Gram; Elisabete Weiderpass; Eric J Duell; Maria-Jose Sanchez; Eva Ardanaz; Nerea Etxezarreta; Carmen Navarro; Annika Idahl; Eva Lundin; Karin Jirström; Jonas Manjer; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Karl Smith Byrne; Ruth C Travis; Marc J Gunter; Melissa A Merritt; Elio Riboli; Daniel W Cramer; Rudolf Kaaks Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Varvara Vitiazeva; Jayesh J Kattla; Sarah A Flowers; Sara K Lindén; Pushpa Premaratne; Birgitta Weijdegård; Karin Sundfeldt; Niclas G Karlsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Björg Kristjánsdóttir; Karolina Partheen; Eric T Fung; Christine Yip; Kristina Levan; Karin Sundfeldt Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 4.452