Robert L Coleman1, Thomas J Herzog2, Daniel W Chan3, Donald G Munroe4, Todd C Pappas4, Alan Smith5, Zhen Zhang6, Judith Wolf7. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, Cincinnati, OH. 3. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 4. Vermillion Inc, Austin, TX. 5. Applied Clinical Intelligence LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA. 6. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 7. Vermillion Inc, Austin, TX. Electronic address: jwolf@Vermillion.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with adnexal mass suspected of ovarian malignancy are likely to benefit from consultation with a gynecologic oncologist, but imaging and biomarker tools to ensure this referral show low sensitivity and may miss cancer at critical stages. OBJECTIVE: The multivariate index assay (MIA) was designed to improve the detection of ovarian cancer among women undergoing surgery for a pelvic mass. To improve the prediction of benign masses, we undertook the redesign and validation of a second-generation MIA (MIA2G). STUDY DESIGN: MIA2G was developed using banked serum samples from a previously published prospective, multisite registry of patients who underwent surgery to remove an adnexal mass. Clinical validity was then established using banked serum samples from the OVA500 trial, a second prospective cohort of adnexal surgery patients. Based on the final pathology results of the OVA500 trial, this intended-use population for MIA2G testing was high risk, with an observed cancer prevalence of 18.7% (92/493). Coded samples were assayed for MIA2G biomarkers by an external clinical laboratory. Then MIA2G results were calculated and submitted to a clinical statistics contract organization for decoding and comparison to MIA results for each subject. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated, among other measures, and stratified by menopausal status, stage, and histologic subtype. RESULTS: Three MIA markers (cancer antigen 125, transferrin, and apolipoprotein A-1) and 2 new biomarkers (follicle-stimulating hormone and human epididymis protein 4) were included in MIA2G. A single cut-off separated high and low risk of malignancy regardless of patient menopausal status, eliminating potential for confusion or error. MIA2G specificity (69%, 277/401 [n/N]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.4-73.4%) and PPV (40%, 84/208; 95% CI, 33.9-47.2%) were significantly improved over MIA (specificity, 54%, 215/401; 95% CI, 48.7-58.4%, and PPV, 31%, 85/271; 95% CI, 26.1-37.1%, respectively) in this cohort. Sensitivity and NPV were not significantly different between the 2 tests. When combined with physician assessment, MIA2G correctly identified 75% of the malignancies missed by physician assessment alone. CONCLUSION: MIA2G specificity and PPV were significantly improved compared with MIA, while sensitivity and NPV were unchanged. The second-generation test significantly improved the predicted efficiency of triage vs MIA without sacrificing high sensitivity and NPV, which are essential for effectiveness.
BACKGROUND:Women with adnexal mass suspected of ovarian malignancy are likely to benefit from consultation with a gynecologic oncologist, but imaging and biomarker tools to ensure this referral show low sensitivity and may miss cancer at critical stages. OBJECTIVE: The multivariate index assay (MIA) was designed to improve the detection of ovarian cancer among women undergoing surgery for a pelvic mass. To improve the prediction of benign masses, we undertook the redesign and validation of a second-generation MIA (MIA2G). STUDY DESIGN: MIA2G was developed using banked serum samples from a previously published prospective, multisite registry of patients who underwent surgery to remove an adnexal mass. Clinical validity was then established using banked serum samples from the OVA500 trial, a second prospective cohort of adnexal surgery patients. Based on the final pathology results of the OVA500 trial, this intended-use population for MIA2G testing was high risk, with an observed cancer prevalence of 18.7% (92/493). Coded samples were assayed for MIA2G biomarkers by an external clinical laboratory. Then MIA2G results were calculated and submitted to a clinical statistics contract organization for decoding and comparison to MIA results for each subject. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated, among other measures, and stratified by menopausal status, stage, and histologic subtype. RESULTS: Three MIA markers (cancer antigen 125, transferrin, and apolipoprotein A-1) and 2 new biomarkers (follicle-stimulating hormone and humanepididymis protein 4) were included in MIA2G. A single cut-off separated high and low risk of malignancy regardless of patient menopausal status, eliminating potential for confusion or error. MIA2G specificity (69%, 277/401 [n/N]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.4-73.4%) and PPV (40%, 84/208; 95% CI, 33.9-47.2%) were significantly improved over MIA (specificity, 54%, 215/401; 95% CI, 48.7-58.4%, and PPV, 31%, 85/271; 95% CI, 26.1-37.1%, respectively) in this cohort. Sensitivity and NPV were not significantly different between the 2 tests. When combined with physician assessment, MIA2G correctly identified 75% of the malignancies missed by physician assessment alone. CONCLUSION: MIA2G specificity and PPV were significantly improved compared with MIA, while sensitivity and NPV were unchanged. The second-generation test significantly improved the predicted efficiency of triage vs MIA without sacrificing high sensitivity and NPV, which are essential for effectiveness.
Authors: Chanhee Han; Stefania Bellone; Eric R Siegel; Gary Altwerger; Gulden Menderes; Elena Bonazzoli; Tomomi Egawa-Takata; Francesca Pettinella; Anna Bianchi; Francesco Riccio; Luca Zammataro; Ghanshyam Yadav; Jarrod A Marto; Marie-France Penet; Douglas A Levine; Ronny Drapkin; Abhijit Patel; Babak Litkouhi; Elena Ratner; Dan-Arin Silasi; Gloria S Huang; Masoud Azodi; Peter E Schwartz; Alessandro D Santin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Naoko Sasamoto; Allison F Vitonis; Raina N Fichorova; Hidemi S Yamamoto; Kathryn L Terry; Daniel W Cramer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Robert C Bast; Zhen Lu; Chae Young Han; Karen H Lu; Karen S Anderson; Charles W Drescher; Steven J Skates Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich; Sigrid Weingartshofer; Christine Rappaport-Fürhauser; Robert Zeillinger; Dietmar Pils; Daniela Muhr; Elena I Braicu; Marie-Therese Kastner; Yen Y Tan; Lorenz Semmler; Jalid Sehouli; Christian F Singer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.240