Combined symptom index and second-generation multivariate biomarker test for prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with an adnexal mass.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a symptom index (SI) and multivariate biomarker panel in the identification of ovarian cancer in women presenting for surgery with an adnexal mass. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of patients seen at a tertiary medical center. Following consent, patients completed an SI and preoperative serum was collected for individual markers (CA 125) and a second-generation FDA-cleared biomarker test (MIA2G). Results for the SI and MIA2G were correlated with operative findings and surgical pathology. Logistic regression modeling was performed to assess the interaction of the SI with MIA2G to determine the risk of malignancy (ROM). RESULTS: Of the 218 patients enrolled, the mean age was 53.6 years (range 18-86). One-hundred and forty-seven patients (67.4%) were postmenopausal. Sixty-four patients (29.4%) had epithelial ovarian cancer or fallopian tube cancer (EOC/FTC) and 17 (7.8%) had borderline ovarian tumors. A positive SI or MIA2G correctly identified 96.1% of patients with EOC/FTC. Using logistic regression, we found that both SI and MIA2G score were significantly associated with ROM (p < 0.001). In a simulation with disease prevalence set at 5%, patients with a negative SI and a MIA2G score of 6 had a ROM of 1.8% whereas patients with the same MIA2G and positive SI had a 10.5% ROM, nearly a 6-fold higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a patient-reported symptom index and refined biomarker panel allows for improved accuracy in the assessment for ovarian cancer in patients with an adnexal mass. This strategy could offer a personalized approach to addressing ROM to triage patients with an adnexal mass to appropriate care.

Adherence to practice guidelines is associated with reduced referral times for patients with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ovarian cancer tend to receive the highest quality of care at high-volume cancer centers with gynecological oncologists. However, the care that they receive prior to gynecological oncology consult has not been examined. We investigated the quantity and quality of care given to patients with ovarian cancer before being seen by a gynecological oncologist. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the variability, quantity, and quality of diagnostic testing and physician-referral patterns prior to consultation with a gynecological oncologist, in women with suspicious pelvic masses seen on imaging. STUDY DESIGN: A chart review was performed on patients treated for ovarian cancer at a single institution from 2001 to 2014. We evaluated their workup in 4 categories, drawn from National Comprehensive Care Network guidelines: provider visits, abdominal/pelvic imaging, chest imaging, and tumor markers. Workup was classified as guideline adherent or guideline nonadherent. RESULTS: We identified 335 cases that met our criteria. In the provider visit category, 83.9% of patients received guideline-adherent workup: 77% in the abdominal/pelvic imaging, 98.2% in the chest imaging, and 95.2% in the tumor marker categories. Each patient's workup was assessed as a compilation of the 4 categories, yielding 65.7% patients as having received an adherent workup and 34.3% of workup as nonadherent to guidelines. The timeframe to see a gynecological oncologist for patients with guideline-adherent workup was significantly shorter than for those whose workup was nonadherant (20 vs 86 days, P < .001). A suspicious pelvic mass was identified by obstetrics-gynecology in only 23.9% of patients; 42.7% of patients did not have tumor marker testing before a gynecological oncologist consult. When an obstetrics-gynecology specialist discovered the suspicious pelvic mass, the remaining workup was more likely to be guideline adherent prior to gynecological oncologist referral than when initial imaging was not ordered by an obstetrics-gynecology specialist (P = .18). Survival was not significantly different (P = .103). CONCLUSION: With a guideline-adherent workup, including tumor marker testing, gynecological oncologist referral times can be shortened, minimizing cost inefficiencies and delays that can compromise the effectiveness of downstream care for patients with ovarian cancer. Guidelines should be disseminated beyond the obstetrics-gynecology field.

Validation of a second-generation multivariate index assay for malignancy risk of adnexal masses.

BACKGROUND: Women with adnexal mass suspected of ovarian malignancy are likely to benefit from consultation with a gynecologic oncologist, but imaging and biomarker tools to ensure this referral show low sensitivity and may miss cancer at critical stages. OBJECTIVE: The multivariate index assay (MIA) was designed to improve the detection of ovarian cancer among women undergoing surgery for a pelvic mass. To improve the prediction of benign masses, we undertook the redesign and validation of a second-generation MIA (MIA2G). STUDY DESIGN: MIA2G was developed using banked serum samples from a previously published prospective, multisite registry of patients who underwent surgery to remove an adnexal mass. Clinical validity was then established using banked serum samples from the OVA500 trial, a second prospective cohort of adnexal surgery patients. Based on the final pathology results of the OVA500 trial, this intended-use population for MIA2G testing was high risk, with an observed cancer prevalence of 18.7% (92/493). Coded samples were assayed for MIA2G biomarkers by an external clinical laboratory. Then MIA2G results were calculated and submitted to a clinical statistics contract organization for decoding and comparison to MIA results for each subject. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated, among other measures, and stratified by menopausal status, stage, and histologic subtype. RESULTS: Three MIA markers (cancer antigen 125, transferrin, and apolipoprotein A-1) and 2 new biomarkers (follicle-stimulating hormone and human epididymis protein 4) were included in MIA2G. A single cut-off separated high and low risk of malignancy regardless of patient menopausal status, eliminating potential for confusion or error. MIA2G specificity (69%, 277/401 [n/N]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.4-73.4%) and PPV (40%, 84/208; 95% CI, 33.9-47.2%) were significantly improved over MIA (specificity, 54%, 215/401; 95% CI, 48.7-58.4%, and PPV, 31%, 85/271; 95% CI, 26.1-37.1%, respectively) in this cohort. Sensitivity and NPV were not significantly different between the 2 tests. When combined with physician assessment, MIA2G correctly identified 75% of the malignancies missed by physician assessment alone. CONCLUSION: MIA2G specificity and PPV were significantly improved compared with MIA, while sensitivity and NPV were unchanged. The second-generation test significantly improved the predicted efficiency of triage vs MIA without sacrificing high sensitivity and NPV, which are essential for effectiveness.

Clinical performance of a multivariate index assay for detecting early-stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the effectiveness of a multivariate index assay (MIA) in identifying early-stage ovarian malignancy compared to clinical assessment, CA 125-II, and modified American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines among women undergoing surgery for an adnexal mass. STUDY DESIGN: Patients were recruited in 2 related prospective, multi-institutional trials involving 44 sites. All women had preoperative imaging and biomarker analysis. Preoperative biomarker values, physician assessment of ovarian cancer risk, and modified ACOG guideline risk stratification were correlated with surgical pathology. RESULTS: A total of 1016 patients were evaluable for MIA, CA 125-II, and clinical assessment. Overall, 86 patients (8.5%) had primary-stage I/II primary ovarian malignancy, with 70.9% having stage I disease and 29.1% having stage II disease. For all early-stage ovarian malignancies, MIA combined with clinical assessment had significantly higher sensitivity (95.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-98.2) compared to clinical assessment alone (68.6%; 95% CI, 58.2-77.4), CA 125-II (62.8%; 95% CI, 52.2-72.3), and modified ACOG guidelines (76.7%; 95% CI, 66.8-84.4) (P < .0001). Among the 515 premenopausal patients, the sensitivity for early-stage ovarian cancer was 89.3% (95% CI, 72.8-96.3) for MIA combined with clinical assessment, 60.7% (95% CI, 42.4-76.4) for clinical assessment alone, 35.7% (95% CI, 20.7-54.2) for CA 125-II, and 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5-89.8) for modified ACOG guidelines. Early-stage ovarian cancer in postmenopausal patients was correctly detected in 98.3% (95% CI, 90.9-99.7) of cases by MIA combined with clinical assessment, compared to 72.4% (95% CI, 59.8-82.2) for clinical assessment alone, 75.9% (95% CI, 63.5-85.0) for CA 125-II, and 75.9% (95% CI, 63.5-85.0) for modified ACOG guidelines. CONCLUSION: MIA combined with clinical assessment demonstrated higher sensitivity for early-stage ovarian malignancy compared to clinical assessment alone, CA 125-II, and modified ACOG guidelines with consistent performance across menopausal status.

Impact of a multivariate index assay on referral patterns for surgical management of an adnexal mass.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact on referral patterns of using a Multivariate Index Assay, CA125, modified-American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists referral guidelines, and clinical assessment among patients undergoing surgery for an adnexal mass after initial evaluation by nongynecologic oncologists. STUDY DESIGN: Overall, 770 patients were enrolled by nongynecologic oncologists from 2 related, multiinstitutional, prospective trials and analyzed retrospectively. All patients had preoperative imaging and biomarker analysis. The subset of patients enrolled by nongynecologic oncologists was analyzed to determine the projected referral patterns and sensitivity for malignancy based on multivariate index assay (MIA), CA125, modified-American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines, and clinical assessment compared with actual practice. RESULTS: The prevalence of malignancy was 21.3% (n = 164). In clinical practice, 462/770 patients (60.0%) were referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery. Triage based on CA125 predicted referral of 157/770 patients (20.4%) with sensitivity of 68.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.8-74.9). Triage based on modified-ACOG guidelines would have resulted in referral of 256/770 patients (33.2%) with a sensitivity of 79.3% (95% CI, 72.4-84.8). Clinical assessment predicted referral of 184/763 patients (24.1%) with a sensitivity of 73.2% (95% CI, 65.9-79.4). Risk stratification using multivariate index assay would have resulted in referral of 429/770 (55.7%) patients, with sensitivity of 90.2% (95% CI, 84.7-93.9). MIA demonstrated statistically significant higher sensitivity (P < .0001) and lower specificity (P < .0001) for detecting malignancy compared with clinical assessment, CA125, and modified-ACOG guidelines. CONCLUSION: In this study population, use of MIA as a risk stratification test was associated with referral patterns by nongynecologic oncologists comparable to actual clinical practice and higher sensitivity for malignancy than other adnexal mass triage algorithms.

Ovarian malignancy risk stratification of the adnexal mass using a multivariate index assay.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in identifying ovarian malignancy compared to clinical assessment and CA125-II, among women undergoing surgery for an adnexal mass after enrollment by non-gynecologic oncology providers. METHODS: A prospective, multi-institutional trial enrolled female patients scheduled to undergo surgery for an adnexal mass from 27 non-gynecologic oncology practices. Pre-operative serum samples and physician assessment of ovarian cancer risk were correlated with final surgical pathology. RESULTS: A total of 494 subjects were evaluable for multivariate index assay, CA125-II, and clinical impression. Overall, 92 patients (18.6%) had a pelvic malignancy. Primary ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 65 patients (13.2%), with 43.1% having FIGO stage I disease. For all ovarian malignancies, the sensitivity of the multivariate index assay was 95.7% (95%CI=89.3-98.3) when combined with clinical impression. The multivariate index assay correctly predicted ovarian malignancy in 91.4% (95%CI=77.6-97.0) of cases of early-stage disease, compared to 65.7% (95%CI=49.2-79.2) for CA125-II. The multivariate index assay correctly identified 83.3% malignancies missed by clinical impression and 70.8% cases missed by CA125-II. Multivariate index assay was superior in predicting the absence of an ovarian malignancy, with a negative predictive value of 98.1% (95%CI=95.2-99.2). Both clinical impression and CA125-II were more accurate at identifying benign disease. The multivariate index assay correctly predicted benign pathology in 204 patients (50.7%, 95%CI=45.9-55.6) when combined with clinical impression. CONCLUSION: The multivariate index assay demonstrated higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for ovarian malignancy compared to clinical impression and CA125-II in an intended-use population of non-gynecologic oncology practices.