OBJECTIVE: Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a promising biomarker of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). But its role in assessing the primary optimal debulking (OD) of EOC remains unknown. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the ability of preoperative HE4 in predicting the primary cytoreductive outcomes in advanced EOC, tubal or peritoneal carcinoma. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 90 patients with advanced ovarian, tubal or peritoneal carcinoma who underwent primary cytoreduction at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Peking University People's Hospital between November 2005 and October 2010. Preoperative serum HE4 and CA125 levels were detected with EIA kit. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the most useful HE4 cut-off value. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant preoperative clinical characteristics to predict optimal primary cytoreduction. RESULTS: OD was achieved in 47.7% (43/48) of patients. The median preoperative HE4 level for patients with OD vs. suboptimal debulking was 423 and 820 pmol/L, respectively (P<0.001). The areas under the ROC curve for HE4 and CA125 were 0.716 and 0.599, respectively (P=0.080). The most useful HE4 cut-off value was 473 pmol/L. Suboptimal cytoreduction was obtained in 66.7% (38/57) of cases with HE4 ≥473 pmol/L compared with only 27.3% (9/33) of cases with HE4 <473 pmol/L. At this threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosing suboptimal debulking were 81%, 56%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that the patients with HE4 ≥473 pmol/L were less likely to achieve OD (odds ratio =5.044, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative serum HE4 may be helpful to predict whether optimal cytoreductive surgery could be obtained or whether extended cytoreduction would be needed by an interdisciplinary team.
OBJECTIVE:Humanepididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a promising biomarker of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). But its role in assessing the primary optimal debulking (OD) of EOC remains unknown. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the ability of preoperative HE4 in predicting the primary cytoreductive outcomes in advanced EOC, tubal or peritoneal carcinoma. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 90 patients with advanced ovarian, tubal or peritoneal carcinoma who underwent primary cytoreduction at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Peking University People's Hospital between November 2005 and October 2010. Preoperative serum HE4 and CA125 levels were detected with EIA kit. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the most useful HE4 cut-off value. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant preoperative clinical characteristics to predict optimal primary cytoreduction. RESULTS: OD was achieved in 47.7% (43/48) of patients. The median preoperative HE4 level for patients with OD vs. suboptimal debulking was 423 and 820 pmol/L, respectively (P<0.001). The areas under the ROC curve for HE4 and CA125 were 0.716 and 0.599, respectively (P=0.080). The most useful HE4 cut-off value was 473 pmol/L. Suboptimal cytoreduction was obtained in 66.7% (38/57) of cases with HE4 ≥473 pmol/L compared with only 27.3% (9/33) of cases with HE4 <473 pmol/L. At this threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosing suboptimal debulking were 81%, 56%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that the patients with HE4 ≥473 pmol/L were less likely to achieve OD (odds ratio =5.044, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative serum HE4 may be helpful to predict whether optimal cytoreductive surgery could be obtained or whether extended cytoreduction would be needed by an interdisciplinary team.
Entities:
Keywords:
CA125; Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4); advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC); optimal cytoreduction
Authors: Ignace Vergote; Claes G Tropé; Frédéric Amant; Gunnar B Kristensen; Tom Ehlen; Nick Johnson; René H M Verheijen; Maria E L van der Burg; Angel J Lacave; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Gemma G Kenter; Antonio Casado; Cesar Mendiola; Corneel Coens; Leen Verleye; Gavin C E Stuart; Sergio Pecorelli; Nick S Reed Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronny Drapkin; Hans Henning von Horsten; Yafang Lin; Samuel C Mok; Christopher P Crum; William R Welch; Jonathan L Hecht Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: June Y Hou; Michael G Kelly; Herbert Yu; Jessica N McAlpine; Masoud Azodi; Thomas J Rutherford; Peter E Schwartz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Dennis S Chi; Oliver Zivanovic; Meena J Palayekar; Eric L Eisenhauer; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Mario M Leitao; Carol L Brown; Richard R Barakat Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Rudy S Suidan; Pedro T Ramirez; Debra M Sarasohn; Jerrold B Teitcher; Svetlana Mironov; Revathy B Iyer; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Harold Paul; Masayoshi Hosaka; Carol A Aghajanian; Mario M Leitao; Ginger J Gardner; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Yukio Sonoda; Douglas A Levine; Hedvig Hricak; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: K Huhtinen; P Suvitie; J Hiissa; J Junnila; J Huvila; H Kujari; M Setälä; P Härkki; J Jalkanen; J Fraser; J Mäkinen; A Auranen; M Poutanen; A Perheentupa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 7.640