• Something wrong with this record ?

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

MA. Karlsen, EV. Høgdall, IJ. Christensen, C. Borgfeldt, G. Kalapotharakos, L. Zdrazilova-Dubska, J. Chovanec, CA. Lok, A. Stiekema, I. Mutz-Dehbalaie, AN. Rosenthal, EK. Moore, BA. Schodin, WW. Sumpaico, K. Sundfeldt, B. Kristjansdottir, I....

. 2015 ; 138 (3) : 640-6. [pub] 20150616

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc16010094

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.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc16010094
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20160413121327.0
007      
ta
008      
160408s2015 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.021 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.021 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26086566
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Karlsen, Mona A $u Department of Pathology, Molecular Unit, Herlev University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark; Department of Gynecology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: mona.aarenstrup.karlsen@regionh.dk.
245    12
$a 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 / $c MA. Karlsen, EV. Høgdall, IJ. Christensen, C. Borgfeldt, G. Kalapotharakos, L. Zdrazilova-Dubska, J. Chovanec, CA. Lok, A. Stiekema, I. Mutz-Dehbalaie, AN. Rosenthal, EK. Moore, BA. Schodin, WW. Sumpaico, K. Sundfeldt, B. Kristjansdottir, I. Zapardiel, CK. Høgdall,
520    9_
$a 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.
650    _2
$a mladiství $7 D000293
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a věkové faktory $7 D000367
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a algoritmy $7 D000465
650    _2
$a nádorové biomarkery $x krev $7 D014408
650    _2
$a antigen CA-125 $x krev $7 D018394
650    _2
$a kohortové studie $7 D015331
650    _2
$a diferenciální diagnóza $7 D003937
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a membránové proteiny $x krev $7 D008565
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a statistické modely $7 D015233
650    _2
$a multivariační analýza $7 D015999
650    _2
$a nemoci ovaria $x krev $x diagnóza $x patologie $7 D010049
650    _2
$a nádory vaječníků $x krev $x diagnóza $x patologie $7 D010051
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a proteiny $x metabolismus $7 D011506
650    _2
$a stupeň závažnosti nemoci $7 D012720
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
700    1_
$a Høgdall, Estrid V S $u Department of Pathology, Molecular Unit, Herlev University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
700    1_
$a Christensen, Ib J $u Finsen Laboratory, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Biotech Research and Innovation Center (BRIC), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
700    1_
$a Borgfeldt, Christer $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Kalapotharakos, Grigorios $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Zdrazilova-Dubska, Lenka $u Department of Laboratory Medicine, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Chovanec, Josef $u Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Lok, Christianne A R $u Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Stiekema, Anna $u Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Mutz-Dehbalaie, Irene $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.
700    1_
$a Rosenthal, Adam N $u Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, John Vane Science Centre, London, UK; Department of Women's Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
700    1_
$a Moore, Elizabeth K $u Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK.
700    1_
$a Schodin, Beth A $u Abbott Diagnostics, USA.
700    1_
$a Sumpaico, Walfrido W $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MCU-FDT Medical Foundation, Philippines.
700    1_
$a Sundfeldt, Karin $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Cancer Center, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Kristjansdottir, Björg $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Cancer Center, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Zapardiel, Ignacio $u Gynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
700    1_
$a Høgdall, Claus K $u Department of Gynecology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
773    0_
$w MED00001958 $t Gynecologic oncology $x 1095-6859 $g Roč. 138, č. 3 (2015), s. 640-6
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26086566 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20160408 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20160413121410 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1113523 $s 934462
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 138 $c 3 $d 640-6 $e 20150616 $i 1095-6859 $m Gynecologic oncology $n Gynecol Oncol $x MED00001958
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20160408

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options