Value of preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and human epididymis protein 4 in predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer patients

Serum CA125 and HE4 as Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometrial Cancer and Associated High-Risk Features

Early detection of endometrial cancer improves survival. Non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers would improve triage of symptomatic women for investigations. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of serum Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125) and Human Epididymis 4 (HE4) for endometrial cancer and associated high-risk features. Serum samples from women investigated for gynaecological symptoms or diagnosed with endometrial cancer were analysed for CA125 and HE4. Conventional diagnostic metrics were calculated. In total, 755 women were included; 397 had endometrial cancer. Serum CA125 and HE4 were significantly elevated in cases compared with controls (both p < 0.001), and with pathological markers of disease severity (p < 0.05). A combination of CA125 and HE4 detected endometrial cancer with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74−0.81). In a model with body mass index (BMI) and parity, HE4 predicted endometrial cancer in pre-menopausal women with an AUC of 0.91 [sensitivity = 84.5%, specificity = 80.9% (p < 0.001)]. In women with abnormal ultrasound, HE4 ≥ 77 pmol/L improved specificity compared with imaging alone [68.6% (95% CI: 75.0−83.6) vs. 34.4% (95% CI: 27.1−42.3), respectively], but at a cost to sensitivity. HE4 ≥ 77 pmol/L improved the detection of myometrial invasion ≥50% in women with stage I disease compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone [sensitivity = 100% (95% CI: 54.1−100)]. CA125 ≥ 35 U/mL did not add to imaging. HE4 is a good predictor of poor prognostic features which could assist staging investigations.

Are blood parameters assessed before taking frozen sections useful in gynecological oncology?

Background/Aim: Inflammatory processes are often implicated in oncology, and inflammatory markers and indices have been much studied in this context. In gynecological surgery, frozen sections have proven valuable in decision-making. Here we aim to identify laboratory parameters that correlate with frozen section results and thus develop new indices in neoplastic decision-making. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study at Bursa Yüksek İhtisas Training and Research Hospital, we evaluated 139 patients diagnosed with adnexal mass and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. We divided the patients whose frozen sections were reported as malignant, borderline, or benign into three groups and compared the pre-operative complete blood parameters. Results: The mean age of our patients was 57.3 (11.5) years, and frozen section reports were benign in 33 (23.7%), borderline in 43 (30.9%), and malignant in 63 (45.3%) patients. The mean corpuscular volume and mean platelet volume values ​​were different, and this difference was significant between borderline and malignant groups in post-hoc analyses (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03, respectively). While the percentage of lymphocytes was lower in malignant groups, the percentage of neutrophils was higher (P = 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively). According to post-hoc analysis, the percentage of neutrophils differs between benign and malignant groups (P = 0.05). The difference in lymphocyte percentage was significant between benign-borderline and benign-malignant groups (P = 0.02, P = 0.05; respectively). The blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio was higher in the malignant groups compared to the other two groups (P = 0.02). We used the Multi Linear Regression Analysis method to analyze the factors that play a role in predicting the frozen outcome as malignant. Accordingly, the model with the best performance used lymphocyte percentage, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and Ca-125 parameters (P = 0.03). Conclusion: This study indicates that inflammatory markers may give a clue about the character of the neoplastic mass before oncology surgery. Thus, we can make new contributions to the surgical and clinical approach in the literature by developing new malignancy indices.

Prognostic values of human epididymis protein 4 expression in patients with endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the correlation between human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and prognosis of endometrial cancer (EC). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the relationship between HE4 and prognosis of EC.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the databases were searched. Correlation of serum or tissue HE4 with clinicopathological characteristics was determined by odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI was calculated to evaluate the correlation between HE4 and survival outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 38 published studies were eligible. We found that high levels of serum HE4 were associated with FIGO III-IV stage (SMD = 1.58, 95%CI: 1.18-1.98, p < 0.001), grade 3 (SMD = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.39-0.93, p = 0.001), ≥50% myometrial invasion (SMD = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.58-0.99, p < 0.001), lymphovascular space invasion (SMD = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.54-1.11, p = 0.001), lymph node metastasis (SMD = 1.27, 95%CI: 0.84-1.69, p < 0.001), cervical involvement (SMD = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.43-0.98, p = 0.003), parametrial involvement (SMD = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.71-1.35, p < 0.001) and peritoneal cytology (SMD = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.22-0.75, p < 0.001). High expression of tissue HE4 was only significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (OR = 6.19, 95%CI: 2.07-18.50, p = 0.001). High levels of serum HE4 were significantly associated with poor overall survival (univariate: HR = 3.77, 95%CI: 1.94-7.32, p < 0.001; multivariate: HR = 2.15, 95%CI: 1.65-2.80, p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (univariate: HR = 2.89, 95%CI: 2.14-3.88, p < 0.001; multivariate: HR = 2.31, 95%CI:1.20-2.67, p < 0.001) in EC. Compared with cancer antigen 125, serum HE4 may be a better prognostic indicator for EC.

CONCLUSIONS

High HE4 expression is associated with poor prognosis of EC and may be a potential prognostic biomarker for EC.

HE4 as a Biomarker for Endometrial Cancer

Simple Summary

There are currently no blood biomarkers approved for routine clinical use in endometrial cancer. Serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is significantly higher in patients with endometrial cancer compared to patients without endometrial cancer and is associated with a poorer prognosis. This makes HE4 an attractive candidate for clinical use in endometrial cancer. The aim of this review is to summarise the evidence for the use of serum HE4 in the detection, prognosis, prediction of therapy response and recurrence monitoring in endometrial cancer. The utility of combining HE4 with other biomarkers or imaging and clinical variables, and its detection in other biofluids is also discussed, as well as potential challenges for clinical use and recommended areas for future research.

Abstract

There are currently no blood biomarkers in routine clinical use in endometrial carcinoma (EC). Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a glycoprotein that is overexpressed in the serum of patients with EC, making it a good candidate for use as a diagnostic and/or prognostic biomarker. HE4 is correlated with poor prognostic factors, including stage, myometrial invasion and lymph node metastases, which means it could be used to guide decisions regarding the extent of surgery and need for adjuvant therapy. Serum HE4 has also shown promise for predicting responses to progestin therapy in early-stage EC. The use of algorithms and indices incorporating serum HE4 and other biomarkers, including clinical and imaging variables, is an area of increasing interest. Serum HE4 levels rise with age and renal dysfunction, which may affect the interpretation of results. This review covers the evidence supporting the use of HE4 as an EC biomarker for diagnosis, prognosis, recurrence monitoring, and prediction of therapy response. The evidence for combining serum HE4 with other biomarkers, including clinical and imaging variables, its value as a biomarker in other biofluids and potential challenges of its clinical use are also discussed.