Serum human epididymis protein 4 vs carbohydrate antigen 125 for ovarian cancer diagnosis: A systematic review

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 273-281

  Ferrarow, Simona ^a,b   Braga, Federica ^b,c   Lanzoni, Monica ^a,b   Boracchi, Patrizia ^b,c   Biganzoli, Elia Mario ^b,c   Panteghini, Mauro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CA 125 ANTIGEN; HUMAN EPIDIDYMIS PROTEIN 4; TUMOR MARKER;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); DATA EXTRACTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; OVARY CANCER; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY;

CA-125 ANTIGEN; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MEMBRANE PROTEINS; ODDS RATIO; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREVALENCE; PROGNOSIS; PROTEINS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84875224028     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: 14724146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201031     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. GLOBOCAN 2008, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lyon, France, 2010. http://globocan.iarc.fr (accessed May 2012
2. Fountain J, Trimble E, Birrer MJ. Summary and discussion of session recommendations. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103:S23-25.
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guidance. Ovarian cancer: The recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK). Cardiff, UK: National Collaborating Centre for Cancer, 2011.
4. Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem 2008;54: E11-79.
5. Bast RC Jr. Status of tumor markers in ovarian cancer screening. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:S200-205.
6. Köbel M, Kalloger SE, Boyd N, et al. Ovarian carcinoma subtypes are different diseases: Implications for biomarker studies. PLoS Med 2008;5:1749-60.
7. Miralles C, Orea M, España P, et al. Cancer antigen 125 associated with multiple benign and malignant pathologies. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:150-4.
8. Havrilesky LJ, Whitehead CM, Rubatt JM, et al. Evaluation of biomarker panels for early stage ovarian cancer detection and monitoring for disease recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110:374-82.
9. Hellström I, Raycraft J, Hayden-Ledbetter M, et al. The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 2003;63:3695-700.
10. Rosen DG, Wang L, Atkinson JN, et al. Potential markers that complement expression of CA-125 in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99:267-77.
11. Shuang Y, Yang H, Xie S, et al. Diagnostic value of HE4 for ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1439-46.
12. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36.
13. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401-6.
14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6:e1000100.
15. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al. Meta-DiSc: A software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:31.
16. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Diagnostic test: Likelihood ratios. Br Med J 2004;329:168-9.
17. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Janes H, et al. Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: Standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1432-8.
18. Park Y, Kim Y, Lee EY, et al. Reference ranges for HE4 and CA-125 in a large Asian population by automated assays and diagnostic performances for ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 2012;130:1136-44.
19. Bandiera E, Romani C, Specchia C, et al. Serum human epididymis protein 4 and risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm as new diagnostic and prognostic tools for epithelial ovarian cancer management. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:2496-506.
20. Escudero JM, Auge JM, Filella X, et al. Comparison of serum human epididymis protein 4 with cancer antigen 125 as a tumor marker in patients with malignant and nonmalignant diseases. Clin Chem 2011;57:1534-44.
21. Molina R, Escudero JM, Augé JM, et al. HE4 a novel tumour marker for ovarian cancer: Comparison with CA 125 and ROMA algorithm in patients with gynaecological diseases. Tumour Biol 2011;32:1087-95.
22. Holcomb K, Vucetic Z, Miller MC, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 offers superior specificity in the differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses in premenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:358.e1-6.
23. Chang X, Ye X, Dong L, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as a serum tumor biomarker in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:852-8.
24. Ruggeri G, Bandiera E, Zanotti L, et al. HE4 and epithelial ovarian cancer: Comparison and clinical evaluation of two immunoassays and a combination algorithm. Clin Chim Acta 2011;412:1447-53.
25. Jacob F, Meier M, Caduff R, et al. No benefit from combining HE4 and CA-125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121:487-91.
26. Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E, et al. HE4 and CA-125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: Prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer 2011;104:863-70.
27. Montagnana M, Danese E, Ruzzenente O, 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? Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:521-5.
28. Yip P, Chen TH, Seshaiah P, et al. Comprehensive serum profiling for the discovery of epithelial ovarian cancer biomarkers. PLoS One 2011;6:e29533.
29. Modarres-Gilani M, Ghaemmaghami F, Mousavi A, et al. Simultaneous measurement of two serum markers (CA-125 and HE-4) while diagnosing malignant ovarian epithelial tumors. Pak J Med Sci 2011;27:858-61.
30. Abdel-Azeez HA, Labib HA, Sharaf SM, et al. HE4 and mesothelin: Novel biomarkers of ovarian carcinoma in patients with pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010;11:111-16.
31. Anastasi E, Marchei GG, Viggiani V, et al. HE4: A new potential early biomarker for the recurrence of ovarian cancer. Tumour Biol 2010;31:113-19.
32. Nolen B, Velikokhatnaya L, Marrangoni A, et al. Serum biomarker panels for the discrimination of benign from malignant cases inpatients with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol 2010;117:440-5.
33. Huhtinen K, Suvitie P, Hiissa J, et al. Serum HE4 concentration differentiates malignant ovarian tumours from ovarian endometriotic cysts. Br J Cancer 2009;100:1315-19.
34. Moore RG, Bast RC Jr. How do you distinguish a malignant pelvic mass from a benign pelvic mass? Imaging, biomarkers, or none of the above. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4159-61.
35. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG Practice Bulletin. Management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:201-14.
36. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Ovarian cancer. Version 2.2009. Washington, PA: NCCN, 2009.
37. Zweig MH, Robertson EA. Why we need better test evaluation. Clin Chem 1982;28:1272-6.
38. Chappell FM, Raab GM, Wardlaw JM. When are summary ROC curves appropriate for diagnostic meta-analyses? Stat Med 2009;28:2653-68.
39. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Stat Med 2007;26:4544-62.
40. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:172-80.
41. McCluggage WG. Ten problematical issues identified by pathology review for multidisciplinary gynaecologicaloncology meetings. J Clin Pathol 2012;65:41-5.