Diagnostic performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in identifying primary ovarian cancer.

AIMS: To evaluate the ability of carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) to identify primary ovarian cancer (OC) from borderline and benign ovarian tumors (OTs) and explore ideal cutoff points. METHODS: A total of 684 OTs containing 276 OC patients, 116 ovarian borderline OTs and 292 benign OTs patients who underwent surgery in our hospital were included. We retrospectively searched the results of CA125 and HE4 before patients' surgery from the hospital's electronic medical records system. ROMA and CPH-I were calculated according to their menopausal status and age, respectively. Diagnostic performance of these four were assessed by drawing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I were all significantly higher in OC women compared with borderline OTs (p < 0.001), followed by benign OTs (p < 0.001). Area under the curves (AUCs) for distinguishing OC were 0.850 (0.818-0.882), 0.891 (0.865-0.916), 0.910 (0.888-0.933) and 0.906 (0.882-0.930), respectively, and the corresponding ideal cutoff values for CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I were 132.5, 68.6, 23.8, and 6.4, respectively. The difference between ROMA and CPH-I was not significant (p = 0.97), but both were higher than CA125 and HE4 (p < 0.05). HE4 showed a significantly higher AUC than CA125 (p < 0.05). For postmenopausal women, CA125 performed equivalently to ROMA (p = 0.73) and CPH-I (p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In identifying patients with OC, ROMA and CPH-I outperformed single tumor marker. The diagnostic performance of HE4 was significantly higher than that of CA125. CA125 was more suitable for postmenopausal women.

Five-Year Survival is Not a Useful Measure for Cancer Control in the Population: an Analysis Based on UK Data

Background: Five-year survival is an important metric for progress in cancer control broadly used both in the cancer literature and by the public. In order to assess its validity and relation to other common metrics, we analyzed the relationship between 5-year survival, incidence and mortality using publicly available cancer registry data from England and Wales. Methods: Five-year survival, incidence and mortality data were obtained from the online database of a registered charity, Cancer Research UK. We extracted sex-specific age-standardized mortality, incidence, and 5-year survivalfor16 types of cancer over the period from 1976 to 1995. The relationships between 5-year survival, incidence and mortality were estimated using both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: All 16cancer types showed an increase in 5-year survival for both genders from 1976 to 1995, ranging from 0.2% (pancreas and lung cancer) to 16.6% (prostate cancer) for males and 0.2% (pancreas cancer) to 16.6% (leukemia) for females. From 1976 to 1995, there was no significant correlation between changes in 5-year survival and cancer mortality for either sex (males, Pearson r=0.16, Spearman r=-0.06; females, Pearson r=-0.33, Spearman r=-0.43). A positive relationship between 5-year survival and incidence was noted among males, but not among females (males, Pearson r=0.61, Spearman r=0.53; females, Pearson r=0.03, Spearman r=0.11). However, after excluding breast and prostate cancer, the positive association became weaker and became statistically non-significant for males (Pearson r=0.47; Spearman r=0.41). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there are no reliable relationships between changes in 5-year survival and cancer incidence or mortality. Increases in 5-year survival might therefore represent poor indicators of progress in cancer control at the population level. In the absence of over-diagnosis, 5-year survival might only indicate improved diagnosis and treatment in clinical practice.