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

dc.contributor.authorCarreras-Dieguez, Nuria
dc.contributor.authorGlickman, Ariel
dc.contributor.authorMunmany, Meritxell
dc.contributor.authorCasanovas, Georgina
dc.contributor.authorAgustí, Núria
dc.contributor.authorDíaz Feijoo, Berta
dc.contributor.authorSaco, Adela
dc.contributor.authorSánchez Hoyo, Beatriz
dc.contributor.authorGaba, Lydia
dc.contributor.authorRovirosa Casino, Angeles
dc.contributor.authorPahisa Fábregas, Jaume
dc.contributor.authorFernández Galán, Esther
dc.contributor.authorTorné Bladé, Aureli
dc.contributor.authorFusté, Pere
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-06T12:49:50Z
dc.date.available2022-07-06T12:49:50Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-17
dc.date.updated2022-07-06T12:49:50Z
dc.description.abstract(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).
dc.format.extent11 p.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.idgrec718358
dc.identifier.issn2075-4418
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2445/187391
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010226
dc.relation.ispartofDiagnostics, 2022, vol. 12, num. 1, p. 226
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010226
dc.rightscc-by (c) Carreras, Núria et al., 2022
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Cirurgia i Especialitats Medicoquirúrgiques)
dc.subject.classificationMarcadors tumorals
dc.subject.classificationCàncer d'ovari
dc.subject.classificationMetàstasi
dc.subject.otherTumor markers
dc.subject.otherOvarian cancer
dc.subject.otherMetastasis
dc.titleComparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Tumors
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Fitxers

Paquet original

Mostrant 1 - 1 de 1
Carregant...
Miniatura
Nom:
718358.pdf
Mida:
632.5 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format