Can ROMA algorithm stratify ovarian tumor patients better when being based on specific age ranges instead of the premenopausal and postmenopausal status?

Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis of Ovarian Carcinoma

The leading cause of gynecological cancer-related morbidity and mortality is ovarian cancer (OC), which is dubbed a silent killer. Currently, OC is a target of intense biomarker research, because it is often not discovered until the disease is advanced. The goal of OC research is to develop effective tests using biomarkers that can detect the disease at the earliest stages, which would eventually decrease the mortality, thereby preventing recurrence. Therefore, there is a pressing need to revisit the existing biomarkers to recognize the potential biomarkers that can lead to efficient predictors for the OC diagnosis. This Perspective covers an update on the currently available biomarkers used in the triaging of OC to gain certain insights into the potential role of these biomarkers and their estimation that are crucial to the understanding of neoplasm progression, diagnostics, and therapy.

[Clinical use and evolution of circulating biomarkers in the era of personalized oncology: From protein markers to bioclinical scores]

In oncology, the identification of targets that correlate with a type of cancer has led to a profound change in the notion of "tumor markers". Technological advances, in particular the development of high-throughput sequencing, have led to the emergence of a new generation of molecular biomarkers for tumors. Despite their limited utility for screening and diagnosis, conventional tumor markers remain interesting for evaluation of prognoses, the choice and optimization of treatments, as well as for monitoring the effectiveness of those treatments. In this article, we revisit the conventional serum markers that are enjoying a 'come back' thanks to the development of high-performance scores based on biological, cytological, clinical, or radiological criteria.

Consideration should be given to smoking, endometriosis, renal function (eGFR) and age when interpreting CA125 and HE4 in ovarian tumor diagnostics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of different biologic, histopathologic and lifestyle factors on serum levels of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) in the diagnostic work up of women with an ovarian cyst or pelvic tumor.

METHODS

The statistical evaluation was performed on a population of 445 women diagnosed with a benign ovarian disease, included in a large Swedish multicenter trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03193671). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to distinguish between the true negatives and false positives through adjusting for biologic, histopathologic and lifestyle factors on serum samples of CA125 and HE4 separately. The likelihood ratio test was used to determine statistical significance and Benjamini-Hochberg correction to adjust for multiple testing.

RESULTS

A total of 31% of the women had false positive CA125 but only 9% had false positive results of HE4. Smoking (OR 6.62 95% CI 2.93-15.12) and impaired renal function, measured by eGFR (OR 0.18 95% CI 0.08-0.39), were independently predictive of falsely elevated serum levels of HE4. Endometriosis was the only variable predictive of falsely elevated serum levels of CA125 (OR 7.96 95% CI 4.53-14.39). Age correlated with increased serum levels of HE4.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking, renal failure, age and endometriosis are factors that independently should be considered when assessing serum levels of HE4 and CA125 in women with an ovarian cyst or pelvic mass to avoid false indications of malignant disease.

Liquid biopsy in ovarian cancer: Catching the silent killer before it strikes

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynaecological malignancy in the western world. The majority of women presenting with the disease are asymptomatic and it has been dubbed the "silent killer". To date there is no effective minimally invasive method of stratifying those with the disease or screening for the disease in the general population. Recent molecular and pathological discoveries, along with the advancement of scientific technology, means there is a real possibility of having disease-specific liquid biopsies available within the clinical environment in the near future. In this review we discuss these discoveries, particularly in relation to the most common and aggressive form of EOC, and their role in making this possibility a reality.

Increased Diagnostic Accuracy of Adnexal Tumors with A Combination of Established Algorithms and Biomarkers

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic cancer. Pre-diagnostic testing lacks sensitivity and specificity, and surgery is often the only way to secure the diagnosis. Exploring new biomarkers is of great importance, but the rationale of combining validated well-established biomarkers and algorithms could be a more effective way forward. We hypothesized that we can improve differential diagnostics and reduce false positives by combining (a) risk of malignancy index (RMI) with serum HE4, (b) risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) with a transvaginal ultrasound score or (c) adding HE4 to CA125 in a simple algorithm. With logistic regression modeling, new algorithms were explored and validated using leave-one-out cross validation. The analyses were performed in an existing cohort prospectively collected prior to surgery, 2013-2016. A total of 445 benign tumors and 135 ovarian cancers were included. All presented models improved specificity at cut-off compared to the original algorithm, and goodness of fit was significant (p < 0.001). Our findings confirm that HE4 is a marker that improves specificity without hampering sensitivity or diagnostic accuracy in adnexal tumors. We provide in this study "easy-to-use" algorithms that could aid in the triage of women to the most appropriate level of care when presenting with an unknown ovarian cyst or suspicious ovarian cancer.

[Comparison of serum cancer antigen 125, human epididymis protein 4, ROMA, and CPH-I for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in Chinese patients with ovarian mass]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen index (CPH-I) for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases in patients with ovarian mass.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 719 women with pelvic mass, and the performance of preoperative serum levels of CA125 and HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for differential diagnosis of the masses was compared.

RESULTS

Of the 710 women analyzed, 531 were diagnosed with benign ovarian lesions, 44 with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs), 119 with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs), and 25 with non-EOCs. In differentiating ovarian cancer (OC) and BOT from benign lesions, the area under the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.854 for HE4, 0.856 for ROMA, 0.854 for CPH-I, and 0.792 for CA125, demonstrating better diagnostic performance of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I than CA125 alone; the diagnostic sensitivity was 56.9% for HE4, 70.2% for CA125, 69.1% for ROMA, and 63.8% for CPH-I; the specificity was the best with HE4 (94.4%) and CPH-I (94.7%). In sub-analysis of EOC vs benign lesions, the AUCs of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I increased to 0.946, 0.947, and 0.943, respectively, all greater than that of CA125 (0.888). In other sub-analyses, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I all showed greater AUCs than CA125 alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the accuracy of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I for differentiating malignant from benign ovarian mass, and all these 3 tests show better performance than CA125. Furthermore, HE4 and CPH-I is superior to ROMA and CA125 in terms of specificity, while CA125 and ROMA have better diagnostic sensitivities.

Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review

Ovarian cancer is the 5th leading cause of death for women with cancer worldwide. In more than 70% of cases, it is only diagnosed at an advanced stage. Our study aims to give an update on the biological markers for diagnosing ovarian cancer, specifically HE4, CA 125, RMI and ROMA algorithms.

Serum CA125 assay has low sensitivity in the early stages and can be increased in certain conditions such as menstruation or endometriosis. The level of HE4 is overexpressed in ovarian tumors. Its specificity is 94% and its level is not affected by endometriosis cysts. The combined measures of CA125 and HE4 have proved to be highly efficient with an area under the curve (AUC) of up to 0.96. Furthermore, this combined measure of CA125 can correct the variations in HE4 which are due to smoking or contraception combining estrogen plus progestin. While the specificity of RMI sometimes reaches 92%, the rather low AUC of 0.86 does not make it the best diagnostic tool. The specificity of ROMA is lower than HE4 (84% compared to 94%).

To date, the most efficient biological diagnostic tool to diagnose ovarian cancer is the combination of CA125 and HE4.

Does the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm Provide Better Diagnostic Performance Than HE4 and CA125 in the Presurgical Differentiation of Adnexal Tumors in Polish Women?

Aim

This study compared the diagnostic performance of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and HE4 and CA125 for the presurgical differentiation of adnexal tumors.

Material and Methods

This prospective study included 302 patients admitted for surgical treatment due to adnexal tumors. The ROMA was calculated depending on CA125, HE4, and menopausal status.

Results

Fifty patients were diagnosed with malignant disease. In the differentiation of malignant from nonmalignant adnexal tumors, the area under curve (AUC) was higher for ROMA and HE4 than that for CA125 in both the premenopausal and postmenopausal subgroups. In the differentiation of stage I FIGO malignancies and epithelial ovarian cancer from nonmalignant pathologies, the AUC of HE4 and ROMA was higher than that of CA125. The ROMA performed significantly better than CA125 in the differentiation of all malignancies and differentiation of stage I FIGO malignancies from nonmalignant pathologies (p = 0.043 and p = 0.025, resp.). There were no significant differences between the ROMA and the tumor markers for any other variants.

Conclusions

The ROMA is more useful than CA125 for the differentiation of malignant (including stage I FIGO) from nonmalignant adnexal tumors. It is also as useful as HE4 and CA125 for the differentiation of epithelial ovarian cancer from nonmalignant adnexal tumors.

[Diagnostic value of CA125, HE4 and Copenhagen Index in differentiating benign from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze diagnostic value of Copenhagen Index based on pretreatment serum CA125, HE4 and age in differentiating benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors.

METHODS

The clinical data were analyzed for 208 consecutive patients with epithelial ovarian tumors (including 100 with malignant and 108 with benign tumors) treated in our department between September, 2014 and September, 2016. The receiver-operating characteristic curve was drawn based on the golden standard of pathological diagnosis for calculation of the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CA125, HE4 and the Copenhagen Index.

RESULTS

In the overall cases, early stage cases and advanced stage cases, the prediction probabilities of CA125, HE4 and Copenhagen Index were all significantly higher for malignant than in benign tumors (P<0.001). The sensitivities of CA125, HE4, Copenhagen Index for differentiating benign and malignant tumors were 81.0%, 86.0% and 91.0% in the overall cases, 64.0%, 68.0% and 72.0% in early stage cases, and 86.7%, 92.0% and 97.3% in advanced stage cases, and their diagnostic specificities were 88.0%, 93.5% and 96.3%, respectively. Copenhagen Index had the highest diagnostic sensitivity (but not in early stage cases) and specificity followed by HE4 and then by CA125 (P<0.001) (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Copenhagen Index combined with CA125, HE4 and age hase better diagnostic value than HE4 or CA125 alone for differentiation between benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors, and can be used clinically to improve the early diagnostic rate of epithelial ovarian cancer.