A novel diagnostic index combining HE4, CA125 and age may improve triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer - An international multicenter study in women with an ovarian mass.

AIM To develop and validate a biomarker-based index to optimize referral and diagnosis of patients with suspected ovarian cancer. Furthermore, to compare this new index with the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA). PATIENTS AND METHODS A training study, consisting of patients with benign ovarian disease (n=809) and ovarian cancer (n=246), was used to develop the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) utilizing the variables serum HE4, serum CA125 and patient age. Eight international studies provided the validation population; comprising 1060 patients with benign ovarian masses and 550 patients with ovarian cancer. RESULTS Overall, 2665 patients were included. CPH-I was highly significant in discriminating benign from malignant ovarian disease. At the defined cut-off of 0.070 for CPH-I the sensitivity and specificity were 95.0% and 78.4% respectively in the training cohort and 82.0% and 88.4% in the validation cohort. Comparison of CPH-I, ROMA and RMI demonstrated area-under-curve (AUC) at 0.960, 0.954 and 0.959 respectively in the training study and 0.951, 0.953 and 0.935 respectively in the validation study. Using a sensitivity of 95.0%, the specificities for CPH-I, ROMA and RMI in the training cohort were 78.4%, 71.7% and 81.5% respectively, and in the validation cohort 67.3%, 70.7% and 69.5% respectively. CONCLUSION All three indices perform well at the clinically relevant sensitivity of 95%, but CPH-I, unlike RMI and ROMA, is independent of ultrasound and menopausal status, and may provide a simple index to optimize referral of women with suspected ovarian cancer.

[1]  D. Whang,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of serum human epididymis protein 4 in combination with CA125 for detecting ovarian cancer: a prospective case-control study in a Korean population , 2011, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[2]  K. Partheen,et al.  Evaluation of ovarian cancer biomarkers HE4 and CA-125 in women presenting with a suspicious cystic ovarian mass , 2011, Journal of gynecologic oncology.

[3]  J. Kappelmayer,et al.  Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in laboratory medicine and an algorithm in renal disorders. , 2015, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[4]  I. Christensen,et al.  Stability of HE4 and CA125 in blood samples from patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer , 2014, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[5]  K. Nustad,et al.  Human epididymis protein 4 reference limits and natural variation in a Nordic reference population , 2011, Tumor Biology.

[6]  S. Tretli,et al.  Improved short-term survival for advanced ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer patients operated at teaching hospitals , 2005, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[7]  D Timmerman,et al.  HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  B. Karlan,et al.  Interpretation of Single and Serial Measures of HE4 and CA125 in Asymptomatic Women at High Risk for Ovarian Cancer , 2012, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[9]  W. Sauerbrei,et al.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  B. Rosen,et al.  Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[11]  R. Knapp,et al.  Human epididymis protein 4 offers superior specificity in the differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses in premenopausal women. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  Steven J Skates,et al.  A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[13]  Thorsten Verch,et al.  The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. , 2008, Gynecologic oncology.

[14]  C. Høgdall,et al.  HE4 Tissue Expression and Serum HE4 Levels in Healthy Individuals and Patients with Benign or Malignant Tumors: A Systematic Review , 2014, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[15]  I. Christensen,et al.  Evaluation of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) as diagnostic tools of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. , 2012, Gynecologic oncology.

[16]  L. Shulman.  The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass , 2008 .

[17]  C. Galli,et al.  HE4 and epithelial ovarian cancer: comparison and clinical evaluation of two immunoassays and a combination algorithm. , 2011, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[18]  F. Harrell,et al.  Prognostic/Clinical Prediction Models: Multivariable Prognostic Models: Issues in Developing Models, Evaluating Assumptions and Adequacy, and Measuring and Reducing Errors , 2005 .

[19]  Michèl Schummer,et al.  The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. , 2003, Cancer research.

[20]  Edmund Chada Baracat,et al.  A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses , 2012, Clinics.

[21]  C. Borgfeldt,et al.  High preoperative blood levels of HE4 predicts poor prognosis in patients with ovarian cancer , 2012, Journal of Ovarian Research.

[22]  D. Bowtell,et al.  Differentiating stage 1 epithelial ovarian cancer from benign ovarian tumours using a combination of tumour markers HE4, CA125, and CEA and patient's age. , 2013, Gynecologic oncology.

[23]  Richard G. Moore,et al.  Serum levels of the ovarian cancer biomarker HE4 are decreased in pregnancy and increase with age. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  R. Sankila,et al.  Surgical treatment of ovarian cancer in different hospital categories--a prospective nation-wide study in Finland. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[25]  Richard G. Moore,et al.  A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[26]  Dirk Timmerman,et al.  Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2014, Human reproduction update.

[27]  B. Ottesen,et al.  Centralized treatment of advanced stages of ovarian cancer improves survival: a nationwide Danish survey , 2010, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[28]  Deborah Schrag,et al.  Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  Daniel B. Mark,et al.  TUTORIAL IN BIOSTATISTICS MULTIVARIABLE PROGNOSTIC MODELS: ISSUES IN DEVELOPING MODELS, EVALUATING ASSUMPTIONS AND ADEQUACY, AND MEASURING AND REDUCING ERRORS , 1996 .

[30]  Giuseppe Lippi,et al.  The ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) for estimating the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women presenting with pelvic mass: is it really useful? , 2011, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[31]  Massimo Candiani,et al.  Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass: correlation with pathological outcome. , 2013, Gynecologic oncology.

[32]  A. Harris,et al.  REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) , 2005, British Journal of Cancer.

[33]  A. Choon,et al.  The use of HE4 in the prediction of ovarian cancer in Asian women with a pelvic mass. , 2013, Gynecologic oncology.