Clinical Use of Cancer Biomarkers in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Updated Guidelines from the European Group on Tumor Markers

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 43-51

  Sölétormos, György ^a   Duffy, Michael J ^b   Othman Abu Hassan, Suher ^a   Verheijen, René H M ^c   Tholander, Bengt ^d   Bast, Robert C ^e   Gaarenstroom, Katja N ^f   Sturgeon, Catharine M ^g   Bonfrer, Johannes M ^h   Petersen, Per Hyltoft ⁱ   Troonen, Hugo ^j   Carlotorre, Gian ^k   Kanty Kulpa, Jan ^l   Tuxen, Malgorzata K ^a   Molina, Raphael ^m  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^f LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g ROYAL INFIRMARY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^h Senior Expert Clinical Laboratories   (Netherlands)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^j Emeritus Scientist from Abbott   (Germany)

^k Centro Ippocrate   (Italy)

^l INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Poland)

^m HOSPITAL CLÍNIC   (Spain)

more..

Author keywords

CA125; Differential diagnosis; HE4; Monitoring; Ovarian cancer; Screening

Indexed keywords

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

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONFERENCE PAPER; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION AND FOLLOW UP; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; GENITAL SYSTEM DISEASE ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDLINE; MENOPAUSE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OVARY CARCINOMA; PATIENT MONITORING; PELVIS TUMOR; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREMENOPAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK OF OVARIAN MALIGNANCY ALGORITHM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; TREATMENT RESPONSE; AGED; ALGORITHM; BLOOD; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS, GLANDULAR AND EPITHELIAL; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; STANDARDS;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CA-125 ANTIGEN; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS, GLANDULAR AND EPITHELIAL; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC;

EID: 84953269496     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: 15251438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000586     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (74)

1. Bast RC Jr, Klug TL, St John E, et al. A radioimmunoassay using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:883-887.
2. Donach M, Yu Y, Artioli G, et al. Combined use of biomarkers for detection of ovarian cancer in high-risk women. Tumour Biol. 2010;31:209-215.
3. Jacobs I, Bast RC Jr. The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:1-12.
4. Duffy MJ, Bonfrer JM, Kulpa J, et al. CA125 in ovarian cancer: European Group on Tumor Markers guidelines for clinical use. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:679-691.
5. Liu J, Matulonis UA. Anti-angiogenic agents in ovarian cancer: dawn of a new era Curr Oncol Rep. 2011;13:450-458.
6. Molina R, Auge JM, Escudero JM, et al. Mucins CA 125, CA 19.9, CA 15.3 and TAG-72.3 as tumor markers in patients with lung cancer: comparison with CYFRA 21-1, CEA, SCC and NSE. Tumour Biol. 2008;29:371-380.
7. Kelly PJ, Archbold P, Price JH, et al. Serum CA19.9 levels are commonly elevated in primary ovarian mucinous tumours but cannot be used to predict the histological subtype. J Clin Pathol. 2010;63:169-173.
8. 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-e79.
9. Høgdall EV, Christensen L, Kjaer SK, et al. Protein expression levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in Danish ovarian cancer patients: from the Danish 'MALOVA' ovarian cancer study. Pathology. 2008;40:487-492.
10. Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:1456-1466.
11. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.
12. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2011;305:2295-2303.
13. Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T, et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:414-420.
14. Van Nagell JR Jr, Miller RW, Desimone CP, et al. Long-term survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer detected by ultrasonographic screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1212-1221.
15. Lu KH, Skates S, Hernandez MA, et al. A 2-stage ovarian cancer screening strategy using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) identifies early-stage incident cancers and demonstrates high positive predictive value. Cancer. 2013;119:3454-3461.
16. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:327-340.
17. Screening for ovarian cancer: recommendations and rationale. American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:141-142.
18. Vasey PA, Herrstedt J, Jelic S. ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16(suppl 1):i13-i15.
19. Sturgeon C. Practice guidelines for tumor marker use in the clinic. Clin Chem. 2002;48:1151-1159.
20. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/guidelines.aspAccessed December 2014.
21. NIH consensus conference. Ovarian cancer. Screening, treatment, and follow-up. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Ovarian Cancer. JAMA. 1995;273:491-497.
22. Van der Velde NM, Mourits MJ, Arts HJ, et al. Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers Int J Cancer. 2009;124:919-923.
23. Lu KH, Daniels M. Endometrial and ovarian cancer in women with Lynch syndrome: update in screening and prevention. Fam Cancer. 2013;12:273-277.
24. Rosenthal AN, Fraser L, Manchanda R, et al. Results of annual screening in phase I of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study highlight the need for strict adherence to screening schedule. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:49-57.
25. Skates SJ, Mai P, Horick NK, et al. Large prospective study of ovarian cancer screening in high-risk women: CA125 cut-point defined by menopausal status. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4:1401-1408.
26. ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;80:235-238.
27. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:922-929.
28. Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:826-831.
29. Morgante G, la Marca A, Ditto A, et al. Comparison of two malignancy risk indices based on serum CA125, ultrasound score and menopausal status in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:524-527.
30. Aslam N, Tailor A, Lawton F, et al. Prospective evaluation of three different models for the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG. 2000;107:1347-1353.
31. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8794-8801.
32. Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, et al. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2448-2454.
33. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ. 2014;349:g5920.
34. NICE Clinical Guideline 122. The Recognition and Initial Management of Ovarian Cancer. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG/Wave17/22. Accessed December 20114.
35. Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Walker G. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for early detection of ovarian cancer: the pivotal role of the clinical laboratory. Ann Clin Biochem. 2011;48(Pt 4):295-299.
36. Meyer T, Rustin GJ. Role of tumour markers in monitoring epithelial ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1535-1538.
37. Gadducci A, Cosio S, Tana R, et al. Serum and tissue biomarkers as predictive and prognostic variables in epithelial ovarian cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;69:12-27.
38. Prat A, Parera M, Peralta S, et al. Nadir CA-125 concentration in the normal range as an independent prognostic factor for optimally treated advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:327-331.
39. Xu X, Wang Y, Wang F, et al. Nadir CA-125 level as prognosis indicator of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6:31.
40. Markman M, Federico M, Liu PY, et al. Significance of early changes in the serum CA-125 antigen level on overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:195-198.
41. Riedinger JM, Eche N, Basuyau JP, et al. Prognostic value of serum CA 125 bi-exponential decrease during first line paclitaxel/platinum chemotherapy: a French multicentric study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:194-198.
42. Van Altena AM, Kolwijck E, Spanjer MJ, et al. CA125 nadir concentration is an independent predictor of tumor recurrence in patients with ovarian cancer: a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:265-269.
43. Rustin GJ. Use of CA-125 to assess response to new agents in ovarian cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(suppl 10):187s-193s.
44. Verheijen RH, Cibula D, Zola P, et al. Cancer antigen 125: lost to follow-up: a European society of gynaecological oncology consensus statement. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:170-174.
45. Rustin GJ, Nelstrop AE, McClean P, et al. Defining response of ovarian carcinoma to initial chemotherapy according to serum CA 125. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1545-1551.
46. Rustin GJ, Vergote I, Eisenhauer E, et al. Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:419-423.
47. Tuxen MK, Sölétormos G, Dombernowsky P. Serum tumour marker CA 125 in monitoring of ovarian cancer during first-line chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:1301-1307.
48. Sölétormos G, Nielsen D, Schiøler V, et al. Tumor markers cancer antigen 15.3, carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide antigen for monitoring metastatic breast cancer during first-line chemotherapy and follow-up. Clin Chem. 1996;42:564-575.
49. Sölétormos G, Semjonow A, Sibley PE, et al. Biological variation of total prostate-specific antigen: a survey of published estimates and consequences for clinical practice. Clin Chem. 2005;51:1342-1351.
50. Rustin GJ, Nelstrop AE, Tuxen MK, et al. Defining progression of ovarian carcinoma during follow-up according to CA 125: a North Thames Ovary Group Study. Ann Oncol. 1996;7:361-364.
51. Rustin GJ, Marples M, Nelstrop AE, et al. Use of CA-125 to define progression of ovarian cancer in patients with persistently elevated levels. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4054-4057.
52. Tuxen MK, Sölétormos G, Dombernowsky P. Serum tumor marker CA 125 for monitoring ovarian cancer during follow-up. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2002;62:177-188.
53. Rustin GJ, van der Burg ME, Griffin CL, et al. Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1155-1163.
54. Rustin GJ, Karlan BY, Markman M. CA-125: To monitor or Not to Monitor Available at:http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759809. Accessed December 2014.
55. Bast RC Jr. CA 125 and the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: a reasonably accurate biomarker for a difficult disease. Cancer. 2010;116:2850-2853.
56. Pignata S, Cannella L, Leopardo D, et al. Follow-up with CA125 after primary therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: in favor of continuing to prescribe CA125 during follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(suppl 8):viii40Yviii44.
57. Sölétormos G, Duffy MJ, Hayes DF, et al. Design of tumor biomarker-monitoring trials: a proposal by the European Group on Tumor Markers. Clin Chem. 2013;59:52-59.
58. 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;32:1087-1095.
59. Zheng H, Gao Y. Serum HE4 as a useful biomarker in discriminating ovarian cancer from benign pelvic disease. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1000-1005.
60. 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;57:1534-1544.
61. Simmons AR, Baggerly K, Bast RC Jr, et al. The emerging role of HE4 in the evaluation of epithelial ovarian and endometrial carcinomas. Oncology (Williston Park). 2013;27:548-556.
62. Nagy B Jr, Krasznai ZT, Balla H, et al. Elevated human epididymis protein 4 concentrations in chronic kidney disease. Ann Clin Biochem. 2012;49:377-380.
63. Wu L, Dai ZY, Qian YH, et al. Diagnostic value of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1106-1112.
64. Li F, Tie R, Chang K, et al. Does risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm excel human epididymis protein 4 and CA125 in predicting epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:258.
65. Yu S, Yang HJ, Xie SQ, et al. Diagnostic value of HE4 for ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50:1439-1446.
66. Hallamaa M, Suvitie P, Huhtinen K, et al. Serum HE4 concentration is not dependent on menstrual cycle or hormonal treatment among endometriosis patients and healthy premenopausal women. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:667-672.
67. Macuks R, Baidekalna I, Donina S. An ovarian cancer malignancy risk index composed of HE4, CA125, ultrasonographic score, and menopausal status: use in differentiation of ovarian cancers and benign lesions. Tumour Biol. 2012;33:1811-1817.
68. Steffensen KD, Waldstrøm M, Brandslund I, et al. Prognostic impact of prechemotherapy serum levels of HER2, CA125, and HE4 in ovarian cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:1040-1047.
69. Midulla C, Manganaro L, Longo F, et al. HE4 combined with MDCT imaging is a good marker in the evaluation of disease extension in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Tumour Biol. 2012;33:1291-1298.
70. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:40-46.
71. Bailey J, Tailor A, Naik R, et al. Risk of malignancy index for referral of ovarian cancer cases to a tertiary center: does it identify the correct cases Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006; 16(suppl 1):30-34.
72. Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E, et al. HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:863-870.
73. 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;49:521-525.
74. Karlsen MA, Sandhu N, Høgdall C, 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. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:379-383.