RMI and ROMA are equally effective in discriminating between benign and malignant gynecological tumors: A prospective population‐based study

A Novel Predictive Multi-Marker Test for the Pre-Surgical Identification of Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal of gynecological malignancies, with the 5-year survival below 50%. Currently there is no simple and effective pre-surgical diagnosis or triage for patients with malignancy, particularly those with early-stage or low-volume tumors. Recently we discovered that CXCL10 can be processed to an inactive form in ovarian cancers and that its measurement has diagnostic significance. In this study we evaluated the addition of processed CXCL10 to a biomarker panel for the discrimination of benign from malignant disease. Multiple biomarkers were measured in retrospectively collected plasma samples (n = 334) from patients diagnosed with benign or malignant disease, and a classifier model was developed using CA125, HE4, Il6 and CXCL10 (active and total). The model provided 95% sensitivity/95% specificity for discrimination of benign from malignant disease. Positive predictive performance exceeded that of "gold standard" scoring systems including CA125, RMI and ROMA% and was independent of menopausal status. In addition, 80% of stage I-II cancers in the cohort were correctly identified using the multi-marker scoring system. Our data suggest the multi-marker panel and associated scoring algorithm provides a useful measurement to assist in pre-surgical diagnosis and triage of patients with suspected ovarian cancer.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

The value of human epididymis 4, D-dimer, and fibrinogen compared with CA 125 alone in triaging women presenting with pelvic masses: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

CA 125, the biomarker in common clinical use for ovarian cancer, is limited by low sensitivity for early disease and high false positives. The aim of this study was to evaluate several candidate biomarkers, alone or in combination, compared with CA 125 in the prediction of malignant/borderline vs benign tumor status in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with pelvic masses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational cohort study set in St James's Hospital, a tertiary referral center for gynecological malignancy in Dublin, Ireland. Women undergoing surgery for pelvic masses between 2012 and 2018 were included. Preoperative human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, the Risk of Malignancy Index I and II, D-dimer, and fibrinogen were assessed. Logistic regression models were fitted for each biomarker alone and in combination. Receiver operating characteristics-area under the curve (ROC-AUC) and partial AUCs in the 90%-100% specificity range were determined.

RESULTS

In all, 89 premenopausal and 185 postmenopausal women were included. In premenopausal women, no biomarker(s) outperformed CA 125 (AUC 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84). In postmenopausal women, HE4 had a partial AUC (pAUC) of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.79) compared with 0.57 (95% CI 0.51-0.69) for CA 125 (p = 0.009). HE4 + D-dimer had an improved pAUC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.81, p < 0.001) and HE4 + D-dimer + fibrinogen had a pAUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.68-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel biomarker panel of HE4 ± D-dimer ± fibrinogen outperformed CA 125 alone as a high-specificity biomarker in postmenopausal women and could aid in the preoperative triaging of pelvic masses. No biomarker(s) outperformed CA 125 in premenopausal women.

Metagenomic Analysis of Serum Microbe-Derived Extracellular Vesicles and Diagnostic Models to Differentiate Ovarian Cancer and Benign Ovarian Tumor

We aimed to develop a diagnostic model identifying ovarian cancer (OC) from benign ovarian tumors using metagenomic data from serum microbe-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs). We obtained serum samples from 166 patients with pathologically confirmed OC and 76 patients with benign ovarian tumors. For model construction and validation, samples were randomly divided into training and test sets in the ratio 2:1. Isolation of microbial EVs from serum samples of the patients and 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing were carried out. Metagenomic and clinicopathologic data-based OC diagnostic models were constructed in the training set and then validated in the test set. There were significant differences in the metagenomic profiles between the OC and benign ovarian tumor groups; specifically, genus Acinetobacter was significantly more abundant in the OC group. More importantly, Acinetobacter was the only common genus identified by seven different statistical analysis methods. Among the various metagenomic and clinicopathologic data-based OC diagnostic models, the model consisting of age, serum CA-125 levels, and relative abundance of Acinetobacter showed the best diagnostic performance with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.898 and 0.846 in the training and test sets, respectively. Thus, our findings establish a metagenomic analysis of serum microbe-derived EVs as a potential tool for the diagnosis of OC.