| Literature DB >> 31938630 |
Anastasia Prodromidou1, Anastasios Pandraklakis1, Dimitrios Loutradis1, Dimitrios Haidopoulos1.
Abstract
The role of preoperative CA 19-9 levels in patients with ovarian mature cystic teratoma (MCT) and the association of elevated levels of the biomarker with patients' and tumor characteristics were evaluated. Four electronic databases were searched for articles published up to September 2019. Trials that evaluated the significance of elevated CA 19-9 in patients with ovarian MCTs and publications with > 20 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. Seven studies that included 995 patients with an ovarian MCT who were evaluated with elevated (n = 364) or normal (n = 631) CA 19-9 levels were included. Mean tumor size was significantly increased in patients with elevated CA 19-9 levels (p = 0.038). The rate of ovarian torsion was significantly increased in the elevated CA 19-9 group (p = 0.04). The present study highlights the importance of CA 19-9 as a marker in the diagnosis of MCT, and a meta-analysis supports that it could raise a high degree of clinical suspicion of early recognition of torsion and early surgical management due to complications related to increased size. Nonetheless, the diagnostic value of CA 19-9 is still limited and CA 19-9 can still serve only as a supplementary diagnostic tool in patients with MCTs.Entities:
Keywords: adnexal mass; biomarker; ca 19-9; dermoid cyst; mature cystic teratoma; torsion
Year: 2019 PMID: 31938630 PMCID: PMC6952044 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.6342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Search flow diagram
Characteristics of the Included Studies
MCT: mature cystic teratoma; MINORS: Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies; N/A: not available; RS: retrospective
| Author/Ref. # | Country | Type of study | MINORS | Inclusion criteria |
| Yesilyurt et al. [ | Turkey | RS | 11 | Age ≤ 35 years; laparoscopic surgery; no pregnancy; no concomitant pelvic pathology, such as myoma or endometriosis; no malignant transformation of teratoma or another type of malignant lesion; no severe renal or hepatic disease |
| Frimer et al. [ | USA | RS | 15 | Histological diagnosis of MCT; available data for tumour markers; no other incidental pathology |
| Cho et al. [ | Korea | RS | 14 | Pathologically confirmed MCT; available data for tumour markers |
| Cengiz et al. [ | Turkey | RS | 15 | No emergent cases; available data for tumour markers |
| Kyung et al. [ | Korea | RS | 15 | No cases with ovarian or uterine diseases |
| Üstünyurt et al. [ | Turkey | RS | 15 | No malignant transformation |
| Dede et al. [ | Turkey | RS | 16 | N/A |
Patients Characteristics (Elevated vs Normal CA 19-9)
aMedian (range); bMean ± SD (standard deviation)
Bil: bilateral; L: left; N/A: not available; R: right
| Author/Ref # | Patient No | Serum level | Elevated CA 19-9 N (%) | Age (years) | Tumor size (cm) | Side (Bil/L/R) | Torsion (N) | Histological components | Elevated CA-125 |
| Yesilyurt et al. [ | 18 vs 59 | N/A | 18/77 (23.4%) | N/A | N/A | Bil 4/18 vs 11/59 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Frimer et al. [ | 52 vs 87 | 131.3 (38.2-11 435)a vs 11.2 (1-35.7)a | 52/139 (37.4%) | 42.6±15.5b vs 41.2±13.7b | 7.9±3.6b vs 7.5±4.2b | Bil 6/52 vs 6/87 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Cho et al. [ | 105 vs 134 | N/A | 105/239 (44%) | N/A | 8.53±3.84b vs 6.95±3.97b | Bil 19/105 vs 18/134 | N/A | Fat: 55/105 vs 27/134; Calcification: 32/105 vs 31/134; Soft tissue: 30/105 vs 38/134; Solid portion: 7/105 vs 9/134; Septation: 10/105 vs 13/134 | 11/105 vs 9/134 |
| Cengiz et al. [ | 32 vs 78 | 34.72±12.23b vs 37.33±12.88b | 32/110 (29%) | N/A | <4 cm 2 vs 13; 4-10 cm 27 vs 58; >10 cm 3 vs 7 | Bil 0 vs 5 R 18 vs 44 L 14 vs 29 | 5 vs 9 | Sebum: 25 vs 52; Hair: 21 vs 48; Keratin: 2 vs 20; Cartilage: 4 vs 14; Teeth: 3 vs 1 | N/A |
| Kyung et al. [ | 52 vs 111 | 82.2 (37.2-575.0)a vs 15.2 (4.0-36.8)a | 52/163 (32%) | 33.5±12.5b vs 33.75±8.17b | 9.5±3.5b vs 9.25±3.17b | Bil 10 vs 23 R 28 vs 50 L 14 vs 38 | 11 vs 10 | N/A | N/A |
| Üstünyurt et al. [ | 74 vs 113 | 193.6±247.7b vs 11.5±8.9b | 74/187 (39.6%) | 36.9±13.4b vs 37.5±12.6b | 8.8±4.5b vs 7.1±4.5b | Bil 9/74 vs 9/113 | N/A | N/A | 33/74 vs 13/113 |
| Dede et al. [ | 31 vs 49 | 246.8±243.5b vs 21.7±30.7b | 31/80 (38.8%) | 31.9±12.5b vs 33.6 ±10.9b | 10.1±6.7b vs 5.9±2.4b | Bil 16/31 vs 6/49 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Figure 2Forest plot depicting tumor size (cm)
[29, 28, 27, 25, 24]
CA: carbohydrate antigen; CI: confidence interval; df: degrees of freedom; IV: independent variables; I2: included2; SD: standard deviation; Z: Z-value (coefficient (B or D) divided by its standard error)
Figure 3Forest plot depicting bilaterality rates
[29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23]
CA: carbohydrate antigen; CI: confidence interval; df: degrees of freedom; I2: included2; M-H: Mantel-Haenszel; Z: Z-value (coefficient (B or D) divided by its standard error)
Figure 4Forest plot depicting torsion rates
[27, 26]
CA: carbohydrate antigen; CI: confidence interval; df: degrees of freedom; I2: included2; M-H: Mantel-Haenszel; Z: Z-value (coefficient (B or D) divided by its standard error)