Salvaging Detection of Early-Stage Ovarian Malignancies When CA125 Is Not Informative

ReClassification of Patients with Ambiguous CA125 for Optimised Pre-Surgical Triage

Pre-surgical clinical assessment of an adnexal mass is a complex process, and ideally requires accurate and rapid identification of disease status. Gold standard biomarker CA125 is extensively used off-label for this purpose; however its performance is typically inadequate, particularly for the detection of early stage disease and discrimination between benign versus malignant status. We recently described a multi-marker panel (MMP) and associated risk index for the differentiation of benign from malignant ovarian disease. In this study we applied a net reclassification approach to assess the use of MMP index to rescue those cases where low CA125 incorrectly excludes cancer diagnoses, or where benign disease is incorrectly assessed as "high risk" due to elevated CA125. Reclassification of such patients is of significant value to assist in the timely and accurate referral for patients where CA125 titer is uninformative.

High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer-A Risk Factor Puzzle and Screening Fugitive

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is the most lethal tumor of the female genital tract. Despite extensive studies and the identification of some precursor lesions like serous tubal intraepithelial cancer (STIC) or the deviated mutational status of the patients (BRCA germinal mutation), the pathophysiology of HGSOC and the existence of particular risk factors is still a puzzle. Moreover, a lack of screening programs results in delayed diagnosis, which is accompanied by a secondary chemo-resistance of the tumor and usually results in a high recurrence rate after the primary therapy. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify the substantial risk factors for both predisposed and low-risk populations of women, as well as to create an economically and clinically justified screening program. This paper reviews the classic and novel risk factors for HGSOC and methods of diagnosis and prediction, including serum biomarkers, the liquid biopsy of circulating tumor cells or circulating tumor DNA, epigenetic markers, exosomes, and genomic and proteomic biomarkers. The novel future complex approach to ovarian cancer diagnosis should be devised based on these findings, and the general outcome of such an approach is proposed and discussed in the paper.

OvaPrint-A Cell-free DNA Methylation Liquid Biopsy for the Risk Assessment of High-grade Serous Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) is the most lethal epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and is often diagnosed at late stage. In women with a known pelvic mass, surgery followed by pathologic assessment is the most reliable way to diagnose EOC and there are still no effective screening tools in asymptomatic women. In the current study, we developed a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylation liquid biopsy for the risk assessment of early-stage HGSOC.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We performed reduced representation bisulfite sequencing to identify differentially methylated regions (DMR) between HGSOC and normal ovarian and fallopian tube tissue. Next, we performed hybridization probe capture for 1,677 DMRs and constructed a classifier (OvaPrint) on an independent set of cfDNA samples to discriminate HGSOC from benign masses. We also analyzed a series of non-HGSOC EOC, including low-grade and borderline samples to assess the generalizability of OvaPrint. A total of 372 samples (tissue n = 59, plasma n = 313) were analyzed in this study.

RESULTS

OvaPrint achieved a positive predictive value of 95% and a negative predictive value of 88% for discriminating HGSOC from benign masses, surpassing other commercial tests. OvaPrint was less sensitive for non-HGSOC EOC, albeit it may have potential utility for identifying low-grade and borderline tumors with higher malignant potential.

CONCLUSIONS

OvaPrint is a highly sensitive and specific test that can be used for the risk assessment of HGSOC in symptomatic women. Prospective studies are warranted to validate OvaPrint for HGSOC and further develop it for non-HGSOC EOC histotypes in both symptomatic and asymptomatic women with adnexal masses.

Evaluation of the Potential Diagnostic Utility of the Determination of Selected Immunological and Molecular Parameters in Patients with Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is one of the most serious challenges in modern gynaecological oncology. Due to its non-specific symptoms and the lack of an effective screening procedure to detect the disease at an early stage, ovarian cancer is still marked by a high mortality rate among women. For this reason, a great deal of research is being carried out to find new markers that can be used in the detection of ovarian cancer to improve early diagnosis and survival rates of women with ovarian cancer. Our study focuses on presenting the currently used diagnostic markers and the latest selected immunological and molecular parameters being currently investigated for their potential use in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Insight on Non-Coding RNAs from Biofluids in Ovarian Tumors

Ovarian tumors are the most frequent adnexal mass, raising diagnostic and therapeutic issues linked to a large spectrum of tumors, with a continuum from benign to malignant. Thus far, none of the available diagnostic tools have proven efficient in deciding strategy, and no consensus exists on the best strategy between "single test", "dual testing", "sequential testing", "multiple testing options" and "no testing". In addition, there is a need for prognostic tools such as biological markers of recurrence and theragnostic tools to detect women not responding to chemotherapy in order to adapt therapies. Non-coding RNAs are classified as small or long based on their nucleotide count. Non-coding RNAs have multiple biological functions such as a role in tumorigenesis, gene regulation and genome protection. These ncRNAs emerge as new potential tools to differentiate benign from malignant tumors and to evaluate prognostic and theragnostic factors. In the specific setting of ovarian tumors, the goal of the present work is to offer an insight into the contribution of biofluid non-coding RNAs (ncRNA) expression.

A systematic review on the association between ovarian and prostate cancer with <I>BRCA1</I> and <I>BRCA2</I> gene

Background. BRCA1 and BRCA2 were discussed as the basis of inherited adenocarcinoma and breast and ovarian malignancy. Ovarian cancer is uncommon in women below 40 years of age, and prostate cancer mainly occurs in older men cause 90 % in those above sixty-fve.

Objective. The main objective of this paper is to investigate the relationship between ovarian and prostate cancer with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Material and Methods. The ovarian and prostate cancer mechanism is discussed in detail, and their preventive measures with screening techniques are also demonstrated. This systematic review collected the related articles from online databases using the key terms ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, BRCA genes, mutation, polymorphism, carcinoma, sarcoma, and genetic association.

Results. Based on the obtained information, it is found that the BRCA genes are highly associated with prostate cancer in men, and in women, it is significantly linked with breast cancer than ovarian cancer.

Conclusion. Therefore, early diagnosis and genetic testing for BRCA1&BRCA2 genes in both men and women are necessary. In some cases, these genes might even cause different types of cancer like pancreatic cancers. Identifying individuals with tumour-HRD through mutations in the homologous repair pathway and determining this gene expression is essential to improve treatment techniques developed during the previous decade and rapidly make their way into clinical trials practice. However, the safe introduction of these medicines into everyday practice will require a thorough understanding of treatment targets and associated adverse effects. 

Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecological cancer, leading to over 152,000 deaths each year. A late diagnosis is the primary factor causing a poor prognosis of ovarian cancer and often occurs due to a lack of specific symptoms and effective biomarkers for an early detection. Currently, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is the most widely used biomarker for ovarian cancer detection, but this approach is limited by a low specificity. In recent years, multimarker panels have been developed by combining molecular biomarkers such as human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4), ultrasound results, or menopausal status to improve the diagnostic efficacy. The risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), the risk of malignancy index (RMI), and OVA1 assays have also been clinically used with improved sensitivity and specificity. Ongoing investigations into novel biomarkers such as autoantibodies, ctDNAs, miRNAs, and DNA methylation signatures continue to aim to provide earlier detection methods for ovarian cancer. This paper reviews recent advancements in molecular biomarkers for the early detection of ovarian cancer.

Management of the Adnexal Mass: Considerations for the Family Medicine Physician

Ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecological cancer, so proper assessment of a pelvic mass is necessary in order to determine which are at high risk for malignancy and should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist. However, in a family medicine setting, evaluation and treatment of these masses can be challenging due to a lack of resources. A number of risk assessment tools are available to family medicine physicians, including imaging techniques, imaging systems, and blood-based biomarker assays each with their respective pros and cons, and varying ability to detect malignancy in pelvic masses. Effective utilization of these assessment tools can inform the care pathway for patients which present with an adnexal mass, such as expectant management for those with a low risk of malignancy, or referral to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery and staging, for those at high risk of malignancy. Triaging patients to the appropriate care pathway improves patient outcomes and satisfaction, and family medicine physicians can play a key role in this decision-making process.

Defining Models to Classify between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses Using Routine Laboratory Parameters

Simple Summary

In patients with adnexal masses, classification into benign or malignant tumors is essential for optimal treatment planning, but remains challenging. In the search for new models applicable in a routine clinical setting, we compared classical single parameters to multiparameter predictive models.

Abstract

Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses is essential for optimal treatment planning, but still remains challenging in a routine clinical setting. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare albumin as a single parameter to calculate models by analyzing laboratory parameters of 1552 patients with an adnexal mass (epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC): n= 294; borderline tumor of the ovary (BTO): n = 66; benign adnexal mass: n = 1192) undergoing surgery. Models comprising classical laboratory parameters show better accuracies (AUCs 0.92–0.93; 95% CI 0.90–0.95) compared to the use of single markers, and could easily be implemented in clinical practice by containing only readily available markers. This has been incorporated into a nomogram.

BRAK and APRIL as novel biomarkers for ovarian tumors

Aims: To evaluate BRAK and APRIL in serum samples from healthy patients and an ovarian tumor group and analyze their effective value as biomarkers. Materials & methods: BRAK and APRIL were measured in 197 serum samples including 34 healthy controls, 48 patients with benign ovarian cysts and 115 patients with ovarian cancer, and the best statistical cutoff values were calculated. Then, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for selected cutoff points were assessed. Results: The healthy control group had statistically significant higher BRAK and lower APRIL than the ovarian tumor group. BRAK was excellent for differentiating healthy patients from patients with ovarian tumors, showing area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.983, 98.16% sensitivity and 100% specificity. When BRAK was combined with APRIL and CA-125, it also played a role in distinguishing benign cysts from malignancies with area under the curve 0.864, 81.74% sensitivity and 79.17% specificity. Conclusions: BRAK and APRIL are good candidates for ovarian tumor biomarkers.

Biomarker-Based Models for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Mass: A Multicenter Validation Study

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal genital malignancy in women. We aimed to develop and validate new proteomic-based models for non-invasive diagnosis of OC. We also compared them to the modified Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA-50), the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and our earlier Proteomic Model 2017. Biomarkers were assessed using bead-based multiplex technology (Luminex®) in 356 women (250 with malignant and 106 with benign ovarian tumors) from five European centers. The training cohort included 279 women from three centers, and the validation cohort 77 women from two other centers. Of six previously studied serum proteins (CA125, HE4, osteopontin [OPN], prolactin, leptin, and macrophage migration inhibitory factor [MIF]), four contributed significantly to the Proteomic Model 2021 (CA125, OPN, prolactin, MIF), while leptin and HE4 were omitted by the algorithm. The Proteomic Model 2021 revealed a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96, 0.99) in the training cohort; however, in the validation cohort it only achieved a c-index of 0.82 (95% CI 0.72, 0.91). Adding patient age to the Proteomic Model 2021 constituted the Combined Model 2021, with a c-index of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97, 1) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.86 (95% CI 0.78, 0.95) in the validation cohort. The Full Combined Model 2021 (all six proteins with age) yielded a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97, 0.99) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.89 (95% CI 0.81, 0.97) in the validation cohort. The validation of our previous Proteomic Model 2017, as well as the ROMA-50 and CPH-I revealed a c-index of 0.9 (95% CI 0.82, 0.97), 0.54 (95% CI 0.38, 0.69) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.85, 0.98), respectively. In postmenopausal women, the three newly developed models all achieved a specificity of 1.00, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1.00, and a sensitivity of >0.9. Performance in women under 50 years of age (c-index below 0.6) or with normal CA125 (c-index close to 0.5) was poor. CA125 and OPN had the best discriminating power as single markers. In summary, the CPH-I, the two combined 2021 Models, and the Proteomic Model 2017 showed satisfactory diagnostic accuracies, with no clear superiority of either model. Notably, although combining values of only four proteins with age, the Combined Model 2021 performed comparably to the Full Combined Model 2021. The models confirmed their exceptional diagnostic performance in women aged ≥50. All models outperformed the ROMA-50.

Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Tumors

(1) OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA index and CPH-I index to preoperatively identify epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or metastatic cancer in the ovary (MCO). (2) METHODS: single center retrospective study, including women with a diagnosis of adnexal mass. We obtained the AUC, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for the diagnosis of EOC and MCO. Subgroup analysis for women harboring adnexal masses with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and Stage I EOC was performed. (3) RESULTS: 1071 patients were included, 852 (79.6%) presented benign/borderline tumors and 219 (20.4%) presented EOC/MCO. AUC for HE4 was higher than for CA125 (0.91 vs. 0.87). No differences were seen between AUC of ROMA and CPH-I, but they were both higher than HE4 AUC. None of the tumor markers alone achieved a sensitivity of 90%; HE4 was highly specific (93.5%). ROMA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 84.6% respectively, while CPH-I showed a sensitivity of 91.1% with 79.2% specificity. For patients with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and with Stage I EOC, ROMA showed the best diagnostic performance (4) CONCLUSIONS: ROMA and CPH-I perform better than tumor markers alone to identify patients harboring EOC or MCO. They can be helpful to assess the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses, especially in cases where ultrasonographic diagnosis is challenging (stage I EOC, inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features).