Boyeon Kim1,2, Yongjung Park1, Banseok Kim1, Hyo Jun Ahn1, Kyung-A Lee3, Jae Eun Chung4, Sang Won Han4. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang-si, Korea. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang-si, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CA 125, HE4, and ROMA for ovarian cancer in Koreans and set optimal cutoffs. METHOD: Serum levels of HE4 and CA 125 and the ROMA score were determined in 762 patients with benign gynecological disease and 70 with ovarian cancer. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to calculate the areas under the curve (AUC). CA 125, HE4, and ROMA exhibiting maximum Youden index were determined, respectively, as the optimal cutoffs, and sensitivity and specificity were evaluated by applying those cutoffs. RESULTS: In benign diseases, CA 125 significantly increased in patients with uterine myoma, adenomyosis, endometrial pathology, or endometriosis, but HE4 only increased in patients with adenomyosis. For the diagnosis of ovarian cancer, the combination of CA 125, HE4, and age showed the highest AUC value of 0.892 in the premenopausal group, and ROMA demonstrated the best diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.935 in postmenopausal patients. When the optimal cutoff values for CA 125 and HE4 were applied, the sensitivities of CA 125, HE4, and ROMA in premenopausal women were all the same at 0.714, while the specificities were 0.841, 0.974, and 0.972, respectively. In the postmenopausal group, the sensitivities of these markers were 0.857, 0.804, and 0.929, and the specificities were 0.836, 0.887, and 0.800, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although all markers demonstrated good diagnostic performance, they varied depending on the pathologic types of benign diseases and ovarian cancer. For accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer, CA 125, HE4, and ROMA should be used complementarily.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CA 125, HE4, and ROMA for ovarian cancer in Koreans and set optimal cutoffs. METHOD: Serum levels of HE4 and CA 125 and the ROMA score were determined in 762 patients with benign gynecological disease and 70 with ovarian cancer. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to calculate the areas under the curve (AUC). CA 125, HE4, and ROMA exhibiting maximum Youden index were determined, respectively, as the optimal cutoffs, and sensitivity and specificity were evaluated by applying those cutoffs. RESULTS: In benign diseases, CA 125 significantly increased in patients with uterine myoma, adenomyosis, endometrial pathology, or endometriosis, but HE4 only increased in patients with adenomyosis. For the diagnosis of ovarian cancer, the combination of CA 125, HE4, and age showed the highest AUC value of 0.892 in the premenopausal group, and ROMA demonstrated the best diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.935 in postmenopausal patients. When the optimal cutoff values for CA 125 and HE4 were applied, the sensitivities of CA 125, HE4, and ROMA in premenopausal women were all the same at 0.714, while the specificities were 0.841, 0.974, and 0.972, respectively. In the postmenopausal group, the sensitivities of these markers were 0.857, 0.804, and 0.929, and the specificities were 0.836, 0.887, and 0.800, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although all markers demonstrated good diagnostic performance, they varied depending on the pathologic types of benign diseases and ovarian cancer. For accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer, CA 125, HE4, and ROMA should be used complementarily.
Authors: Richard G Moore; Moune Jabre-Raughley; Amy K Brown; Katina M Robison; M Craig Miller; W Jeffery Allard; Robert J Kurman; Robert C Bast; Steven J Skates Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 8.661
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: H Kobayashi; Y Yamada; T Sado; M Sakata; S Yoshida; R Kawaguchi; S Kanayama; H Shigetomi; S Haruta; Y Tsuji; S Ueda; T Kitanaka Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2007-07-21 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Katarzyna M Terlikowska; Bozena Dobrzycka; Anna M Witkowska; Beata Mackowiak-Matejczyk; Tomasz Kamil Sledziewski; Maciej Kinalski; Slawomir J Terlikowski Journal: J Ovarian Res Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 4.234
Authors: Dirk Timmerman; François Planchamp; Tom Bourne; Chiara Landolfo; Andreas du Bois; Luis Chiva; David Cibula; Nicole Concin; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Guillermo Gallardo Madueño; Birthe Lemley; Annika Loft; Liliana Mereu; Philippe Morice; Denis Querleu; Antonia Carla Testa; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye; Giovanni Scambia; Christina Fotopoulou Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.437