Clinical and technical evaluation of the ACS:OV serum assay and comparison with three other CA125-detecting assays.

BACKGROUND: In this study the clinical and technical performance of the CA125- detecting Bayer ACS:OV immunoluminometric serum assay was compared with three other well-established CA125-detecting assays. METHODS: A total of 1112 serum samples was included in this evaluation: 462 from apparently healthy women, 153 from patients with benign ovarian disease, 163 from patients with malignant ovarian disease, 10 from patients with borderline ovarian malignancies and 78 samples from 12 ovarian cancer patients during monitoring of disease. Serum samples from women with malignant endometrial (n = 68) and colon (n = 32) diseases were also included. Moreover, serum samples from women with benign uterine disease and endometriosis (n = 136) plus 10 serum samples from men (n = 7) and women (n = 3) with human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA) after immunoscintigraphy were included. All samples were tested in duplicate with the Bayer ACS:OV, the Centocor CA125 II, the Abbott IMx CA125 and the Roche (formerly Boehringer Mannheim) Enzymun-Test CA125 II assays. RESULTS: The clinical performance of the Bayer ACS:OV assay, assessed in various patient groups, was similar to that of the two other automated assays. In serum from patients with benign diseases the highest values were found in patients with benign ovarian tumours. In the ovarian cancer patients followed during the course of disease we found similar marker patterns with all four assays. In contrast to the Roche Enzymun-CA125 II assay and to a lesser extent the Centocor CA125 II assay, the Bayer ACS:OV assay was less sensitive to interference from HAMA. CONCLUSION: The Bayer ACS:OV assay is a precise and reliable test for the quantification of CA125 in serum.

The differential diagnostic potential of a panel of tumor markers (CA 125, CA 15-3, and CA 72-4 antigens) in patients with a pelvic mass.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the differential diagnostic potential of a combination of CA 125, CA 15-3, and CA 72-4 antigens in the definition of malignant disease, especially ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 412 patients were evaluated in a multicenter, retrospective study. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-six malignant, 171 benign pelvic tumors (of which 129 were benign ovarian tumors), and 15 borderline tumors were evaluated. One hundred thirty-three patients had ovarian carcinoma. In 76 cases (55%), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage was III or IV. Borderline tumors (n = 15) were excluded from the statistical calculations. CA 125 antigen was the most sensitive marker for ovarian carcinoma (81%). The highest specificity and positive predictive value was obtained with CA 15-3 antigen (95% and 92%, respectively). Considering a concomitant elevation of all 3 markers as positive, a positive predictive value of 97% was found. However, only 28% of the patients in the total group and 41% of the patients with ovarian carcinoma had a concomitant elevation of all 3 markers. The combination of all 3 markers with levels below the cut-off resulted in a (false-positive) positive predictive value for malignancy between 12% and 36%. With the use of logistic regression analysis, we found a correct prediction in 73% of the cases. CA 15-3 antigen makes the most significant (P <.0001) contribution to the logistic model in the prediction of malignancy in the total group, with all pelvic masses with an odds ratio of 3.86. CONCLUSION: The combination of a simultaneous elevated level of CA 125, CA 15-3, and CA 72-4 antigens was predictive for malignant disease in almost all cases. However, such concomitant elevation was found in few of the malignant masses. Logistic regression analysis revealed that CA 15-3 antigen makes the most significant contribution to a model for the prediction of malignancy in the total group. The logistic model gave a correct prediction in 73% to 83%. The present tumor marker panel seems inferior to combinations with other test modalities, which include ultrasonography and/or physical examination and/or menopausal status or age.