Christopher Walker1, Tuan-Minh Nguyen2, Shlomit Jessel3, Ayesha B Alvero1,4, Dan-Arin Silasi3, Thomas Rutherford5, Sorin Draghici2,4, Gil Mor1,4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA. 2. Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA. 4. C.S. Mott Center for Human Growth and Development, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33606, USA.
Abstract
Background: Mortality from ovarian cancer remains high due to the lack of methods for early detection. The difficulty lies in the low prevalence of the disease necessitating a significantly high specificity and positive-predictive value (PPV) to avoid unneeded and invasive intervention. Currently, cancer antigen- 125 (CA-125) is the most commonly used biomarker for the early detection of ovarian cancer. In this study we determine the value of combining macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), osteopontin (OPN), and prolactin (PROL) with CA-125 in the detection of ovarian cancer serum samples from healthy controls. Materials and Methods: A total of 432 serum samples were included in this study. 153 samples were from ovarian cancer patients and 279 samples were from age-matched healthy controls. The four proteins were quantified using a fully automated, multi-analyte immunoassay. The serum samples were divided into training and testing datasets and analyzed using four classification models to calculate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The four-protein biomarker panel yielded an average accuracy of 91% compared to 85% using CA-125 alone across four classification models (p = 3.224 × 10-9). Further, in our cohort, the four-protein biomarker panel demonstrated a higher sensitivity (median of 76%), specificity (median of 98%), PPV (median of 91.5%), and NPV (median of 92%), compared to CA-125 alone. The performance of the four-protein biomarker remained better than CA-125 alone even in experiments comparing early stage (Stage I and Stage II) ovarian cancer to healthy controls. Conclusions: Combining MIF, OPN, PROL, and CA-125 can better differentiate ovarian cancer from healthy controls compared to CA-125 alone.
Background: Mortality from ovarian cancer remains high due to the lack of methods for early detection. The difficulty lies in the low prevalence of the disease necessitating a significantly high specificity and positive-predictive value (PPV) to avoid unneeded and invasive intervention. Currently, cancer antigen- 125 (CA-125) is the most commonly used biomarker for the early detection of ovarian cancer. In this study we determine the value of combining macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), osteopontin (OPN), and prolactin (PROL) with CA-125 in the detection of ovarian cancer serum samples from healthy controls. Materials and Methods: A total of 432 serum samples were included in this study. 153 samples were from ovarian cancerpatients and 279 samples were from age-matched healthy controls. The four proteins were quantified using a fully automated, multi-analyte immunoassay. The serum samples were divided into training and testing datasets and analyzed using four classification models to calculate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The four-protein biomarker panel yielded an average accuracy of 91% compared to 85% using CA-125 alone across four classification models (p = 3.224 × 10-9). Further, in our cohort, the four-protein biomarker panel demonstrated a higher sensitivity (median of 76%), specificity (median of 98%), PPV (median of 91.5%), and NPV (median of 92%), compared to CA-125 alone. The performance of the four-protein biomarker remained better than CA-125 alone even in experiments comparing early stage (Stage I and Stage II) ovarian cancer to healthy controls. Conclusions: Combining MIF, OPN, PROL, and CA-125 can better differentiate ovarian cancer from healthy controls compared to CA-125 alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
CA-125; MIF; early detection; osteopontin; ovarian cancer; prolactin
Authors: Steven J Skates; Mark H Greene; Saundra S Buys; Phuong L Mai; Powel Brown; Marion Piedmonte; Gustavo Rodriguez; John O Schorge; Mark Sherman; Mary B Daly; Thomas Rutherford; Wendy R Brewster; David M O'Malley; Edward Partridge; John Boggess; Charles W Drescher; Claudine Isaacs; Andrew Berchuck; Susan Domchek; Susan A Davidson; Robert Edwards; Steven A Elg; Katie Wakeley; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Deborah Armstrong; Ira Horowitz; Carol J Fabian; Joan Walker; Patrick M Sluss; William Welch; Lori Minasian; Nora K Horick; Carol H Kasten; Susan Nayfield; David Alberts; Dianne M Finkelstein; Karen H Lu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Eun Mi Hur; Sawsan Youssef; M Edward Haws; Susan Y Zhang; Raymond A Sobel; Lawrence Steinman Journal: Nat Immunol Date: 2006-12-03 Impact factor: 25.606
Authors: Rinki Agarwal; Dong Hee Whang; Ayesha B Alvero; Irene Visintin; Yinglei Lai; Elliot A Segal; Peter Schwartz; David Ward; Thomas Rutherford; Gil Mor Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Subbulakshmi Karthikeyan; Angela Russo; Matthew Dean; Daniel D Lantvit; Michael Endsley; Joanna E Burdette Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Jae-Hoon Kim; Steven J Skates; Toshimitsu Uede; Kwong-kwok Wong; John O Schorge; Colleen M Feltmate; Ross S Berkowitz; Daniel W Cramer; Samuel C Mok Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-04-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Maureen G Phipps; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272