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?

The diagnostic accuracy of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) for discriminating between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Many women with benign pelvic masses, suspected of ovarian cancer, are unnecessarily referred for treatment at specialized centers. There is an unmet clinical need to improve diagnostic assessment in these patients. Our objective was to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of human epididymis protein (HE4) for diagnosing ovarian cancer and to compare the performance of HE4 with that of cancer antigen 125 (CA125).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Ovid and Scopus using search terms for "pelvic masses" and "HE4", to identify studies that evaluated HE4 for diagnosing malignant ovarian masses, in adult women presenting with a pelvic mass, suspected of ovarian cancer, and with diagnosis confirmed by histopathology. Screening, data extraction and Risk of Bias assessment with the QUADAS-2 tool were done independently by two authors. We performed a meta-analysis of the accuracy of HE4 and CA125 using a random-effects bivariate logit-normal model. A study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020158073).

RESULTS

In the 17 eligible studies, which included 3404 patients, ovarian cancer prevalence ranged from 15% to 71%. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous. All studies seemed to have recruited patients in specialized settings. A meta-analysis of seven HE4 studies resulted in a mean sensitivity of 79.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.1%-83.8%) and a mean specificity of 84.1% (95% CI 79.6%-87.8%), for cut-off values of 67-72 pmol/L. Based on eight studies, the mean sensitivity of CA125 was 81.4% (95% CI 74.6%-86.2%) and the mean specificity was 56.8% (95% CI 47.9%-65.4%), at a cut-off of 35 U/ml. Given a 40% ovarian cancer prevalence, the positive predictive value (PPV) for HE4 would be 76.9% (71.9%-81.2%) versus 55.6% (50.2%-60.9%) for CA125. The negative predictive value (NPV) would be 85.9 (82.8%-88.6%) and 81.9% (76.2%-86.4%), respectively. At a 15% prevalence, the NPV would be 95.8% (95% CI 94.4%-96.7%) for HE4 and 94.4% (95% CI 92.3%-96.0%) for CA125. The PPV would be 46.9% (40.4%-53.4%) and 24.9% (21.1%-29.2%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HE4 had higher specificity and similar sensitivity compared with CA125. At high prevalence, PPV was also higher for HE4, but at low prevalence, it had a similar NPV to CA125. The field would benefit from studies conducted in general settings.

MicroRNA as Biomarker in Ovarian Cancer Management: Advantages and Challenges

Ovarian cancer is the most prevalent gynecological malignancy affecting women throughout the globe. Ovarian cancer has several subtypes, including epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with a whopping incidence rate of 239,000 per year, making it the sixth most common gynecological malignancy worldwide. Despite advancement of detection and therapeutics, death rate accounts for 152,000 per annum. Several protein-based biomarkers such as CA125 and HE4 are currently being used for diagnosis, but their sensitivity and specificity for early detection of ovarian cancer are under question. MicroRNA (a small noncoding RNA molecule that participates in post-transcription regulation of gene expression) and its functional deregulation in most cancers have been discovered in the previous two decades. Studies support that miRNA deregulation has an epigenetic component as well. Aberrant miRNA expression is often correlated with the form of EOC tumor, histological grade, prognosis, and FIGO stage. In this review, we addressed epigenetic regulation of miRNAs, the latest research on miRs as a biomarker in the detection of EOC, and tailored assays to use miRNAs as a biomarker in ovarian cancer diagnosis.

CPH-I and HE4 Are More Favorable Than CA125 in Differentiating Borderline Ovarian Tumors from Epithelial Ovarian Cancer at Early Stages

Aim

To evaluate the diagnosis value of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), and Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) at early stages for differentiating borderline ovarian tumors from epithelial ovarian cancer.

Methods

We recruited 144 borderline ovarian tumors in FIGO stages I and II (BOT I+II), 108 epithelial ovarian cancers in FIGO stages I and II (EOC I+II), and 238 benign ovarian tumor patients with surgical treatment in the retrospective study. The concentration of HE4 and CA125 and the values of CPH-I and ROMA were assessed separately.

Results

The HE4 level and ROMA and CPH-I values of EOC I+II were all higher than that of BOT I+II and benign groups whether in all, pre-, or postmenopausal groups (P < 0.01). When distinguishing BOT I+II from EOC I+II, the AUC-ROC of CPH-I and HE4 were bigger than CA125 (P < 0.001), while the CPH-I has the highest sensitivities in all and postmenopausal groups (78.7%, 85.1%), and HE4 has the highest specificity and PPV (90.91%, 88.64%) in postmenopausal groups. Under pathological stratification, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I of the serous EOC I+II were higher than that of BOT I+II (P < 0.001) and the AUC of the three indices were significantly bigger than CA125 (P < 0.001). However, the concentration of HE4 and CA125 and the values of CPH-I and ROMA have no significant difference between the two endometrioid subgroups. The index with the highest sensitivity and NPV among the four indices of different pathological subtype groups was CPH-I, and the index with the highest specificities and PPV was HE4.

Conclusion

CPH-I was more valuable than CA125 for differentiating BOT I+II from EOC I+II regardless of menopausal status, while HE4 might be better than CA125 for postmenopausal subgroups. HE4 and CPH-I were more favorable than CA125 for differentiating BOT I+II from EOC I+II in the case of unknown pathology or in serous type.