OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first performed a hospital-based, case-control study involving 123 ovarian cancer patients and 101 benign ovarian tumor patients, and then conducted a meta-analysis with 19 case-control studies to assess the correlation between ovarian cancer and plasma LPA levels. RESULTS: The case-control study results demonstrated that ovarian cancer patients have increased LPA and cancer antigen (CA)-125 levels compared to patients with benign ovarian tumor (LPA: Ovarian cancer vs benign ovarian tumor: 5.28 ± 1.52 vs 1.82 ± 0.77 μmol/L; CA-125: Ovarian cancer vs benign ovarian tumor: 87.17 ± 45.81 vs. 14.03 ± 10.14 U/mL), which showed statistically significant differences (both P < 0.05). LPA with advanced sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy rate of diagnosis excelled CA-125 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (both P < 0.05). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (LPA: 0.983; CA-125: 0.910) were statistically significant compared with the reference (both P < 0.001) and the difference of the areas of ROC curve between LPA and CA-125 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer showed statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The meta-analysis results suggested that plasma LPA levels were higher in ovarian cancer tissues than in benign tissues (standardized mean difference (SMD) =2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.61-3.11, P < 0.001) and normal tissues (SMD = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.77-2.87, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: LPA shows greater value in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer compared to CA-125 and may be employed as a biological index to diagnose ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first performed a hospital-based, case-control study involving 123 ovarian cancerpatients and 101 benign ovarian tumorpatients, and then conducted a meta-analysis with 19 case-control studies to assess the correlation between ovarian cancer and plasma LPA levels. RESULTS: The case-control study results demonstrated that ovarian cancerpatients have increased LPA and cancer antigen (CA)-125 levels compared to patients with benign ovarian tumor (LPA: Ovarian cancer vs benign ovarian tumor: 5.28 ± 1.52 vs 1.82 ± 0.77 μmol/L; CA-125: Ovarian cancer vs benign ovarian tumor: 87.17 ± 45.81 vs. 14.03 ± 10.14 U/mL), which showed statistically significant differences (both P < 0.05). LPA with advanced sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy rate of diagnosis excelled CA-125 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (both P < 0.05). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (LPA: 0.983; CA-125: 0.910) were statistically significant compared with the reference (both P < 0.001) and the difference of the areas of ROC curve between LPA and CA-125 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer showed statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The meta-analysis results suggested that plasma LPA levels were higher in ovarian cancer tissues than in benign tissues (standardized mean difference (SMD) =2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.61-3.11, P < 0.001) and normal tissues (SMD = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.77-2.87, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:LPA shows greater value in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer compared to CA-125 and may be employed as a biological index to diagnose ovarian cancer.
Authors: Evelyn Minis; Kevin Holcomb; Giovanni Sisti; Dimitrios Nasioudis; Tomi T Kanninen; Aikaterini Athanasiou; Melissa K Frey; Eloise Chapman-Davis; Thomas A Caputo; Steven S Witkin Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X Date: 2019-03-18
Authors: Mariati Abdul Rahman; Didi Erwandi Mohamad Haron; Robert J Hollows; Zuleen Delina Fasya Abdul Ghani; Mustafa Ali Mohd; Wen Lin Chai; Ching Ching Ng; Munn Sann Lye; Saiful Anuar Karsani; Lee Fah Yap; Ian C Paterson Journal: PeerJ Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 2.984