Literature DB >> 24055582

Clinical performance of a multivariate index assay for detecting early-stage ovarian cancer.

Teresa C Longoria1, Frederick R Ueland2, Zhen Zhang3, Daniel W Chan3, Alan Smith4, Eric T Fung5, Donald G Munroe6, Robert E Bristow7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the effectiveness of a multivariate index assay (MIA) in identifying early-stage ovarian malignancy compared to clinical assessment, CA 125-II, and modified American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines among women undergoing surgery for an adnexal mass. STUDY
DESIGN: Patients were recruited in 2 related prospective, multi-institutional trials involving 44 sites. All women had preoperative imaging and biomarker analysis. Preoperative biomarker values, physician assessment of ovarian cancer risk, and modified ACOG guideline risk stratification were correlated with surgical pathology.
RESULTS: A total of 1016 patients were evaluable for MIA, CA 125-II, and clinical assessment. Overall, 86 patients (8.5%) had primary-stage I/II primary ovarian malignancy, with 70.9% having stage I disease and 29.1% having stage II disease. For all early-stage ovarian malignancies, MIA combined with clinical assessment had significantly higher sensitivity (95.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-98.2) compared to clinical assessment alone (68.6%; 95% CI, 58.2-77.4), CA 125-II (62.8%; 95% CI, 52.2-72.3), and modified ACOG guidelines (76.7%; 95% CI, 66.8-84.4) (P < .0001). Among the 515 premenopausal patients, the sensitivity for early-stage ovarian cancer was 89.3% (95% CI, 72.8-96.3) for MIA combined with clinical assessment, 60.7% (95% CI, 42.4-76.4) for clinical assessment alone, 35.7% (95% CI, 20.7-54.2) for CA 125-II, and 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5-89.8) for modified ACOG guidelines. Early-stage ovarian cancer in postmenopausal patients was correctly detected in 98.3% (95% CI, 90.9-99.7) of cases by MIA combined with clinical assessment, compared to 72.4% (95% CI, 59.8-82.2) for clinical assessment alone, 75.9% (95% CI, 63.5-85.0) for CA 125-II, and 75.9% (95% CI, 63.5-85.0) for modified ACOG guidelines.
CONCLUSION: MIA combined with clinical assessment demonstrated higher sensitivity for early-stage ovarian malignancy compared to clinical assessment alone, CA 125-II, and modified ACOG guidelines with consistent performance across menopausal status.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  detection; early stage; ovarian cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24055582     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  17 in total

1.  Management of the Adnexal Mass: Considerations for the Family Medicine Physician.

Authors:  Brian Bullock; Lisa Larkin; Lauren Turker; Kate Stampler
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-05

Review 2.  Current and Emerging Methods for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review.

Authors:  Juliane M Liberto; Sheng-Yin Chen; Ie-Ming Shih; Tza-Huei Wang; Tian-Li Wang; Thomas R Pisanic
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  Identification of novel candidate plasma metabolite biomarkers for distinguishing serous ovarian carcinoma and benign serous ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Matthew F Buas; Haiwei Gu; Danijel Djukovic; Jiangjiang Zhu; Charles W Drescher; Nicole Urban; Daniel Raftery; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 4.  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

5.  Economic Impact of Increased Utilization of Multivariate Assay Testing to Guide the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: Implications for Payers.

Authors:  Burton S Brodsky; Gary M Owens; Dennis J Scotti; Keith A Needham; Christina L Cool
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2017-10

Review 6.  Advances in mass spectrometry-based clinical biomarker discovery.

Authors:  Christopher A Crutchfield; Stefani N Thomas; Lori J Sokoll; Daniel W Chan
Journal:  Clin Proteomics       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.988

7.  Personalized Proteomics: The Future of Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Trevor T Duarte; Charles T Spencer
Journal:  Proteomes       Date:  2016-10-01

8.  Preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors using a modified multivariate index assay.

Authors:  Hero A Abdurrahman; Ariana Kh Jawad; Shahla K Alalalf
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 4.234

9.  Predicting Ovarian Cancer Patients' Clinical Response to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy by Their Tumor Proteomic Signatures.

Authors:  Kun-Hsing Yu; Douglas A Levine; Hui Zhang; Daniel W Chan; Zhen Zhang; Michael Snyder
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.466

10.  A multiplex platform for the identification of ovarian cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  Kristin L M Boylan; Kate Geschwind; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Melissa A Geller; Timothy K Starr; Amy P N Skubitz
Journal:  Clin Proteomics       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 3.988

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.