Diagnostic Utility of Selected Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-11, MMP-26), HE4, CA125 and ROMA Algorithm in Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer.

Ovarian cancer (OC) has an unfavorable prognosis. Due to the lack of effective screening tests, new diagnostic methods are being sought to detect OC earlier. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concentration and diagnostic utility of selected matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) as OC markers in comparison with HE4, CA125 and the ROMA algorithm. The study group consisted of 120 patients with OC; the comparison group consisted of 70 patients with benign lesions and 50 healthy women. MMPs were determined via the ELISA method, HE4 and CA125 by CMIA. Patients with OC had elevated levels of MMP-3 and MMP-11, similar to HE4, CA125 and ROMA values. The highest SE, SP, NPV and PPV values were found for MMP-26, CA125 and ROMA in OC patients. Performing combined analyses of ROMA with selected MMPs increased the values of diagnostic parameters. The topmost diagnostic power of the test was obtained for MMP-26, CA125, HE4 and ROMA and performing combined analyses of MMPs and ROMA enhanced the diagnostic power of the test. The obtained results indicate that the tested MMPs do not show potential as stand-alone OC biomarkers, but can be considered as additional tests to raise the diagnostic utility of the ROMA algorithm.

Can ROMA algorithm stratify ovarian tumor patients better when being based on specific age ranges instead of the premenopausal and postmenopausal status?

After several years of research, HE4 was found to be characterized by slightly worse sensitivity but significantly higher specificity as compared with CA125. Further studies led to the diagnostic potential of both markers (CA125 and HE4) being combined in a single risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) algorithm. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic capabilities of the ROMA algorithm using age ranges instead of dichotomization of patients according to the pre- and postmenopausal status. A total of 413 female patients were included in the study, including 162 premenopausal and 251 postmenopausal women. Calculation of the final ROMA values was achieved by means of stepwise reduction of coefficients in the proposed formula of: %ROMA = exp(PI)/[1-exp(PI)]*100) and PI = A + W(HE4)(*)ln(HE4) + W(CA125)(*)ln (CA125) and the arrangement of values with consideration to the age group, HE4 level, differentiation of modification, and directional coefficients as well as determination of individual deviations affecting the widening of the median. The cutoff value of modified algorithm ROMA P for the entire study population was calculated from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and DeLong method at the levels of 23.5 %. Marked higher sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) values are observed for the standard ROMA algorithm while higher specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) values are observed for the modified algorithm ROMA P. The proposed age-related modification of algorithm calculation does not require the patients being dichotomized according to their pre- or postmenopausal status, and satisfactory diagnostic values may be obtained using a single cutoff point for the entire population.

The Role of CA 125 as Tumor Marker: Biochemical and Clinical Aspects.

CA 125 also known as mucin 16 or MUC16 is a large membrane glycoprotein belonging to the wide mucin family, encoded by the homonymous MUC16 gene. Following its discovery in the blood of some patients with specific types of cancers or other benign conditions, CA125 has found application as a tumor marker of ovarian cancer. Thirty years after its discovery, use of CA 125 is still FDA-recommended to monitor response to therapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and to detect residual or recurrent disease in patients who have undergone first-line therapy and would be considered for second-look procedures. However, due to its limited specificity and sensitivity, CA 125 alone cannot still be an ideal biomarker. Increased clinical performance, in terms of better sensitivity and specificity in identifying epithelial ovarian cancer relapse, has been obtained by combined use of CA 125 with HE4, another ovarian cancer marker recently introduced in clinical use. Significant advancements have been achieved more recently, due to the introduction of FDA-approved ROMA and OVA1 algorithms to evaluate the risk of ovarian cancer for patients with a pelvic mass.

Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring Systems

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy of subjective assessment (SA), the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group Simple Rules Risk (SRR) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model for the preoperative differentiation of adnexal masses in pregnant women. METHODS: The study population comprised 36 pregnant women (median age: 28.5 years old, range: 20-42 years old) with a mean gestation age of 13.5 (range: 8-31) weeks at diagnosis. Tumors were prospectively classified by local sonographers as probably benign or probably malignant using SA. Final tumor histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard in all cases. Logistic regression SRR and ADNEX models were used to obtain a risk score for every case. Serum CA125 and human epidydimis protein 4 (HE4) concentrations were also retrieved and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) value was calculated. The calculated predictive values included positive and negative likelihood ratios of ultrasound and biochemical tests. RESULTS: Final histology confirmed 27 benign and 9 malignant (including 2 borderline) masses. The highest sensitivity (89%) and specificity (70%) were found for the subjective tumor assessment. Although no malignancy was classified as benign using the SRR criteria (sensitivity = 100%), the specificity of this scoring system was only 37%. At the cut-off risk level of >20%, the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 70%. Serum levels of CA125, HE4 and the ROMA risk model correctly identified adnexal malignant tumors with a sensitivity of 67%, 25% and 25%, respectively. Corresponding specificities were 72%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The highest positive and negative likelihood ratios were found for SA (LR+ = 3.0 and LR- = 0.16, respectively). Overall diagnostic accuracy of all predictive methods used in this study were similar (range: 70-75%) except for SRR (53%). CONCLUSION: Subjective assessment remains the best predictive method in complex adnexal masses found at prenatal ultrasound in pregnant women. For less experienced sonographers, both the SRR and ADNEX scoring systems may be also used for the characterization of such tumors, while serum tumor markers CA125 and HE4, along with the ROMA algorithm appear to be less accurate.