Archana R Simmons1, Charlotte H Clarke, Donna B Badgwell, Zhen Lu, Lori J Sokoll, Karen H Lu, Zhen Zhang, Robert C Bast, Steven J Skates. 1. *Department of Experimental Therapeutics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; †Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; ‡Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and §Department of Biostatistics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Longitudinal multimarker combinations have the potential to improve sensitivity while maintaining the high specificity required for the early detection of ovarian cancer. The use of multiple markers to improve sensitivity over cancer antigen 125 (CA125) in longitudinal algorithms for early ovarian cancer detection requires the selection of markers with optimal discriminatory power and low longitudinal variance relative to disease-initiated changes. Our objective was to identify a multimarker panel suitable for ovarian cancer, where each individual marker has its own baseline, permitting longitudinal algorithm development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we measured CA125, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), matrix metalloproteinase-7 (MMP-7), CA72-4, CA19-9, CA15-3, carcinoembryonic antigen, and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM) concentrations using immunoassays in pretreatment sera from 142 stage I ovarian cancer cases and 5 annual samples each from 217 healthy controls. After random division into training and validation sets, all possible biomarker combinations were explored exhaustively using linear classifiers to identify the panel with the greatest sensitivity for stage I disease at a high specificity of 98%. To evaluate longitudinal performance of the individual markers, the within-person over time and the between-person coefficient of variation (CV) were estimated. Hierarchical modeling across women of log-concentrations enabled the borrowing of information across subjects to moderate variance estimates given the small number of observations per subject. RESULTS: The 4-marker panel comprising CA125, HE4, MMP-7, and CA72-4 performed with the highest sensitivity (83.2%) at 98% specificity. The within-person CVs were lower for CA125, HE4, MMP-7, and CA72-4 (15%, 25%, 25%, and 21%, respectively) compared with their corresponding between-person CV (49%, 20%, 35%, and 84%, respectively) indicating baselines in healthy volunteers. After simple log-transformations, the within-volunteer variation across volunteers was modeled with a normal distribution permitting parsimonious hierarchical modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The multiplex panel chosen is suitable for the early detection of ovarian cancer and the individual markers have their own baseline permitting longitudinal algorithm development.
OBJECTIVES: Longitudinal multimarker combinations have the potential to improve sensitivity while maintaining the high specificity required for the early detection of ovarian cancer. The use of multiple markers to improve sensitivity over cancer antigen 125 (CA125) in longitudinal algorithms for early ovarian cancer detection requires the selection of markers with optimal discriminatory power and low longitudinal variance relative to disease-initiated changes. Our objective was to identify a multimarker panel suitable for ovarian cancer, where each individual marker has its own baseline, permitting longitudinal algorithm development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we measured CA125, humanepididymis protein 4 (HE4), matrix metalloproteinase-7 (MMP-7), CA72-4, CA19-9, CA15-3, carcinoembryonic antigen, and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM) concentrations using immunoassays in pretreatment sera from 142 stage I ovarian cancer cases and 5 annual samples each from 217 healthy controls. After random division into training and validation sets, all possible biomarker combinations were explored exhaustively using linear classifiers to identify the panel with the greatest sensitivity for stage I disease at a high specificity of 98%. To evaluate longitudinal performance of the individual markers, the within-person over time and the between-person coefficient of variation (CV) were estimated. Hierarchical modeling across women of log-concentrations enabled the borrowing of information across subjects to moderate variance estimates given the small number of observations per subject. RESULTS: The 4-marker panel comprising CA125, HE4, MMP-7, and CA72-4 performed with the highest sensitivity (83.2%) at 98% specificity. The within-person CVs were lower for CA125, HE4, MMP-7, and CA72-4 (15%, 25%, 25%, and 21%, respectively) compared with their corresponding between-person CV (49%, 20%, 35%, and 84%, respectively) indicating baselines in healthy volunteers. After simple log-transformations, the within-volunteer variation across volunteers was modeled with a normal distribution permitting parsimonious hierarchical modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The multiplex panel chosen is suitable for the early detection of ovarian cancer and the individual markers have their own baseline permitting longitudinal algorithm development.
Authors: Zoya Yurkovetsky; Steven Skates; Aleksey Lomakin; Brian Nolen; Trenton Pulsipher; Francesmary Modugno; Jeffrey Marks; Andrew Godwin; Elieser Gorelik; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon; Karen Lu; Donna Badgwell; Robert C Bast; Anna E Lokshin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel W Cramer; Robert C Bast; Christine D Berg; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Andrew K Godwin; Patricia Hartge; Anna E Lokshin; Karen H Lu; Martin W McIntosh; Gil Mor; Christos Patriotis; Paul F Pinsky; Mark D Thornquist; Nathalie Scholler; Steven J Skates; Patrick M Sluss; Sudhir Srivastava; David C Ward; Zhen Zhang; Claire S Zhu; Nicole Urban Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-03
Authors: Daniel G Rosen; Lin Wang; J Neeley Atkinson; Yinhua Yu; Karen H Lu; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Ingegerd Hellstrom; Samuel C Mok; Jinsong Liu; Robert C Bast Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-08-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Rachel Hallett; Andy Ryan; Matthew Burnell; Aarti Sharma; Sara Lewis; Susan Davies; Susan Philpott; Alberto Lopes; Keith Godfrey; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Ian Scott; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Lesley Fallowfield; Naveena Singh; Anne Dawnay; Steven J Skates; Mahesh Parmar; Ian Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Richard G Moore; Amy K Brown; M Craig Miller; Steven Skates; W Jeffrey Allard; Thorsten Verch; Margaret Steinhoff; Geralyn Messerlian; Paul DiSilvestro; C O Granai; Robert C Bast Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-12-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Karen H Lu; Steven Skates; Mary A Hernandez; Deepak Bedi; Therese Bevers; Leroy Leeds; Richard Moore; Cornelius Granai; Steven Harris; William Newland; Olasunkanmi Adeyinka; Jeremy Geffen; Michael T Deavers; Charlotte C Sun; Nora Horick; Herbert Fritsche; Robert C Bast Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Saundra S Buys; Edward Partridge; Amanda Black; Christine C Johnson; Lois Lamerato; Claudine Isaacs; Douglas J Reding; Robert T Greenlee; Lance A Yokochi; Bruce Kessel; E David Crawford; Timothy R Church; Gerald L Andriole; Joel L Weissfeld; Mona N Fouad; David Chia; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R Ragard; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Patricia Hartge; Paul F Pinsky; Claire S Zhu; Grant Izmirlian; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony B Miller; Jian-Lun Xu; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Garnet L Anderson; Martin McIntosh; Lieling Wu; Matt Barnett; Gary Goodman; Jason D Thorpe; Lindsay Bergan; Mark D Thornquist; Nathalie Scholler; Nam Kim; Kathy O'Briant; Charles Drescher; Nicole Urban Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Archana R Simmons; Evangelia Ourania Fourkala; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Ryan; Margie N Sutton; Keith Baggerly; Hui Zheng; Karen H Lu; Ian Jacobs; Steven Skates; Usha Menon; Robert C Bast Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-04-09
Authors: Martin Widschwendter; Michal Zikan; Benjamin Wahl; Harri Lempiäinen; Tobias Paprotka; Iona Evans; Allison Jones; Shohreh Ghazali; Daniel Reisel; Johannes Eichner; Tamas Rujan; Zhen Yang; Andrew E Teschendorff; Andy Ryan; David Cibula; Usha Menon; Timo Wittenberger Journal: Genome Med Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Rahat Jahan; Koelina Ganguly; Lynette M Smith; Pranita Atri; Joseph Carmicheal; Yuri Sheinin; Satyanarayana Rachagani; Gopalakrishnan Natarajan; Randall E Brand; Muzafar A Macha; Paul M Grandgenett; Sukhwinder Kaur; Surinder K Batra Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 8.143