RESUMEN
Currently, ovarian cancer (OC) is a target of intense biomarkers research because of its frequent late diagnosis and poor prognosis. Serum determination of Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a very important early detection test. Most interestingly, HE4 plays a unique role in OC as it has been implicated not only in OC diagnosis but also in the prognosis and recurrence of this lethal neoplasm, actually acting as a clinical biomarker. There are several evidence about the predictive power of HE4 clinically, conversely less has been described concerning its role in OC oncogenesis. Based on these considerations, the main goal of this review is to clarify the role of HE4 in OC proliferation, angiogenesis, metastatization, immune response and also in the development of targeted therapy. Through a deeper understanding of its functions as a key molecule in the oncogenetic processes underlying OC, HE4 could be possibly considered as an essential resource not only for diagnosis but also for prognosis and therapy choice.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Ováricas , Proteínas , Humanos , Femenino , Proteínas/metabolismo , Biomarcadores de Tumor/metabolismo , Neoplasias Ováricas/diagnóstico , Carcinogénesis , Transformación Celular Neoplásica/genética , Antígeno Ca-125RESUMEN
Ovarian Cancer (OC) diagnosis is entrusted to CA125 and HE4. Since the latter has been found increased in COVID-19 patients, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the influence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on OC biomarkers. HE4 values above the cut-off were observed in 65% of OC patients and in 48% of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients (not oncologic patients), whereas CA125 values above the cut-off were observed in 71% of OC patients and in 11% of SARS-CoV-2 patients. Hence, by dividing the HE4 levels into quartiles, we can state that altered levels of HE4 in COVID-19 patients were mostly detectable in quartile I (151-300 pmol/L), while altered levels in OC patients were mostly clustered in quartile III (>600, pmol/L). In light of these observations, in order to better discriminate women with ovarian cancer versus those with COVID-19, we established a possible HE4 cut-off of 328 pmol/L by means of a ROC curve. These results demonstrate that the reliability of HE4 as a biomarker in ovarian cancer remains unchanged, despite COVID-19 interference; moreover, it is important for a proper diagnosis that whether the patient has a recent history of SARS-CoV-2 infection is determined.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias Ováricas , Humanos , Femenino , Biomarcadores de Tumor , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Proteína 2 de Dominio del Núcleo de Cuatro Disulfuros WAP , COVID-19/diagnóstico , SARS-CoV-2 , Neoplasias Ováricas/diagnóstico , Curva ROCRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic, required the development of different diagnostic tests. While reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) remains the first-line test of choice in acute infection diagnosis, anti-N antibodies serological assays provide a valuable tool to differentiate natural SARS-CoV-2 immunological response from that induced by vaccination, thus the goal of our study was to evaluate three serological tests agreement for these antibodies detection. METHODS: Three anti-N different tests were examined in 74 sera from patients referred or not COVID infection: immunochromatographic rapid test (Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device Abbott, Germany), ELISA kit (NovaLisa® SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM NovaTech Immunodiagnostic GmbH, Germany) and ECLIA immunoassay (Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Roche Diagnostics, Manheim, Germany). RESULTS: Qualitative comparison of the three analytical methods revealed a moderate agreement between ECLIA immunoassay and immunochromatographic rapid test (Cohen kappa coefficient κ = 0.564). Correlation analysis indicated weak positive correlation between total Ig (IgT) detected by ECLIA immunoassay and IgG by ELISA test (p < 0.0001), the analysis of ECLIA IgT and IgM ELISA detected, showed no statistical correlation. CONCLUSION: Comparison between of three analytical systems available for anti-N SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies showed a general agreement when compared to detect total and G class immunoglobulins, while doubtful or discordant results have been highlighted for IgT and IgM class. Anyway, all the tests examined provide reliable results to assess the serological status of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.