Chanhee Han1, Stefania Bellone1, Eric R Siegel2, Gary Altwerger1, Gulden Menderes1, Elena Bonazzoli1, Tomomi Egawa-Takata1, Francesca Pettinella1, Anna Bianchi1, Francesco Riccio1, Luca Zammataro1, Ghanshyam Yadav1, Jarrod A Marto3, Marie-France Penet4, Douglas A Levine5, Ronny Drapkin6, Abhijit Patel7, Babak Litkouhi1, Elena Ratner1, Dan-Arin Silasi1, Gloria S Huang1, Masoud Azodi1, Peter E Schwartz1, Alessandro D Santin8. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA. 3. Department of Cancer Biology, Department of Oncologic Pathology, Blais Proteomic Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 4. Division of Cancer Imaging Research, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY 10016, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn Ovarian Cancer Research Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. 7. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA. 8. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. Electronic address: alessandro.santin@yale.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since the majority of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynecologic malignancy. There is no single biomarker with the sensitivity and specificity required for effective cancer screening; therefore, we investigated a panel of novel biomarkers for the early detection of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Twelve serum biomarkers with high differential gene expression and validated antibodies were selected: IL-1Ra, IL-6, Dkk-1, uPA, E-CAD, ErbB2, SLPI, HE4, CA125, LCN2, MSLN, and OPN. They were tested using Simple Plex™, a multi-analyte immunoassay platform, in samples collected from 172 patients who were either healthy, had benign gynecologic pathologies, or had high-grade serous ovarian adenocarcinomas. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, ROC area under the curve (AUC), and standard error (SE) of the AUC were obtained. Univariate ROC analyses and multivariate ROC analyses with the combination of multiple biomarkers were performed. RESULTS: The 4-marker panel consisting of CA125, HE4, E-CAD, and IL-6 had the highest ROC AUC. When evaluated for the ability to distinguish early stage ovarian cancer from a non-cancer control, not only did this 4-marker panel (AUC=0.961) performed better than CA 125 alone (AUC=0.851; P=0.0150) and HE4 alone (AUC=0.870; P=0.0220), but also performed significantly better than the 2- marker combination of CA125+HE4 (AUC=0.922; P=0.0278). The 4-marker panel had the highest average sensitivity under the region of its ROC curve corresponding to specificity ranging from 100% down to ~95%. CONCLUSION: The four-marker panel, CA125, HE4, E-CAD, and IL-6, shows potential in detecting serous ovarian cancer at earlier stages. Additional validation studies using the biomarker combination in ovarian cancer patients are warranted.
INTRODUCTION: Since the majority of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynecologic malignancy. There is no single biomarker with the sensitivity and specificity required for effective cancer screening; therefore, we investigated a panel of novel biomarkers for the early detection of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Twelve serum biomarkers with high differential gene expression and validated antibodies were selected: IL-1Ra, IL-6, Dkk-1, uPA, E-CAD, ErbB2, SLPI, HE4, CA125, LCN2, MSLN, and OPN. They were tested using Simple Plex™, a multi-analyte immunoassay platform, in samples collected from 172 patients who were either healthy, had benign gynecologic pathologies, or had high-grade serous ovarian adenocarcinomas. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, ROC area under the curve (AUC), and standard error (SE) of the AUC were obtained. Univariate ROC analyses and multivariate ROC analyses with the combination of multiple biomarkers were performed. RESULTS: The 4-marker panel consisting of CA125, HE4, E-CAD, and IL-6 had the highest ROC AUC. When evaluated for the ability to distinguish early stage ovarian cancer from a non-cancer control, not only did this 4-marker panel (AUC=0.961) performed better than CA 125 alone (AUC=0.851; P=0.0150) and HE4 alone (AUC=0.870; P=0.0220), but also performed significantly better than the 2- marker combination of CA125+HE4 (AUC=0.922; P=0.0278). The 4-marker panel had the highest average sensitivity under the region of its ROC curve corresponding to specificity ranging from 100% down to ~95%. CONCLUSION: The four-marker panel, CA125, HE4, E-CAD, and IL-6, shows potential in detecting serous ovarian cancer at earlier stages. Additional validation studies using the biomarker combination in ovarian cancerpatients are warranted.
Authors: C Van Holsbeke; A Daemen; J Yazbek; T K Holland; T Bourne; T Mesens; L Lannoo; B De Moor; E De Jonge; A C Testa; L Valentin; D Jurkovic; D Timmerman Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Marina Rosso; Blanca Majem; Laura Devis; Lara Lapyckyj; María José Besso; Marta Llauradó; María Florencia Abascal; María Laura Matos; Lucia Lanau; Josep Castellví; José Luis Sánchez; Asunción Pérez Benavente; Antonio Gil-Moreno; Jaume Reventós; Anna Santamaria Margalef; Marina Rigau; Mónica Hebe Vazquez-Levin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: U Menon; A Talaat; A N Rosenthal; N D Macdonald; A R Jeyerajah; S J Skates; K Sibley; D H Oram; I J Jacobs Journal: BJOG Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Edward Partridge; Aimee R Kreimer; Robert T Greenlee; Craig Williams; Jian-Lun Xu; Timothy R Church; Bruce Kessel; Christine C Johnson; Joel L Weissfeld; Claudine Isaacs; Gerald L Andriole; Sheryl Ogden; Lawrence R Ragard; Saundra S Buys Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Kalpana Deepa Priya Dorayappan; Miranda L Gardner; Colin L Hisey; Roman A Zingarelli; Brentley Q Smith; Michelle D S Lightfoot; Rajan Gogna; Meghan M Flannery; John Hays; Derek J Hansford; Michael A Freitas; Lianbo Yu; David E Cohn; Karuppaiyah Selvendiran Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Mijin Kim; Chen Chen; Peng Wang; Joseph J Mulvey; Yoona Yang; Christopher Wun; Merav Antman-Passig; Hong-Bin Luo; Sun Cho; Kara Long-Roche; Lakshmi V Ramanathan; Anand Jagota; Ming Zheng; YuHuang Wang; Daniel A Heller Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 29.234
Authors: Stefan Enroth; Malin Berggrund; Maria Lycke; John Broberg; Martin Lundberg; Erika Assarsson; Matts Olovsson; Karin Stålberg; Karin Sundfeldt; Ulf Gyllensten Journal: Commun Biol Date: 2019-06-20
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