Can serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) support the decision to refer a patient with an ovarian mass to an oncology hospital?

INTRODUCTION: The value of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in guiding referral decisions in patients with an ovarian mass remains unclear, because the majority of studies investigating HE4 were performed in oncology hospitals. However, the decision to refer is made at general hospitals with a low ovarian cancer prevalence. We assessed accuracies of HE4 in differentiating benign or borderline from malignant tumors in patients presenting with an ovarian mass at general hospitals. METHOD: Patients with an ovarian mass were prospectively included between 2017 and 2021 in nine general hospitals. HE4 and CA125 were preoperatively measured and the risk of malignancy index (RMI) was calculated. Histological diagnosis was the reference standard. RESULTS: We included 316 patients, of whom 195 had a benign, 39 had a borderline and 82 had a malignant ovarian mass. HE4 had the highest AUC of 0.80 (95%CI 0.74-0.86), followed by RMI (0.71, 95%CI 0.64-0.78) and CA125 (0.69, 95%CI 0.62-0.75). Clinical setting significantly influenced biomarker performances. Applying age-dependent cut-off values for HE4 resulted in a better performance than one cut-off. Addition of HE4 to RMI resulted in a 32% decrease of unnecessary referred patients, while the number of correctly referred patients remained the same. CONCLUSION: HE4 is superior to RMI in predicting malignancy in patients with an ovarian mass from general hospitals. The addition of HE4 to the RMI improved HE4 alone. Although, there is still room for improvement, HE4 can guide referral decisions in patients with an ovarian mass to an oncology hospital.

Humoral immune responses to MUC1 in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer patients with early disease and a natural humoral response to MUC1 have a favourable prognosis, suggesting a possible role of MUC1 antibodies (ab) in controlling haematogenous tumour dissemination and outgrowth. The aim of the study was to evaluate humoral immune responses to MUC1 in women at hereditary high risk of breast cancer to investigate whether this immune response could play a role in the prevention of disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CA15.3 (U/mL), and IgG and IgM ab to MUC1 (arbitrary units per mL, Arb-U/mL) were measured in serum samples obtained from 422 women at hereditary high risk of breast/ovarian cancer, of whom 127 BRCA1/2 carriers, attending the Familial Cancer Clinic of the VU University Medical Centre, and from 370 age-matched healthy controls. Serum samples obtained from women who developed breast cancer (N=12) or breast cancer recurrence (N=17), and from women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy (N=12) and had no breast lesions were also tested. RESULTS: CA15.3 ranked significantly higher in mutation carriers than in controls (P=0.03). MUC1 IgG ab levels ranked significantly lower in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers than in controls (P=0.003). MUC1 IgG levels were not significantly different (P=0.53) between women who developed primary breast cancer (median 0.72Arb-U/ml, range 0.52-2.44Arb-U/ml) and women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy and had no breast lesions (median 1.04Arb-U/ml, range 0.43-2.88Arb-U/ml). CONCLUSION: Serum levels of natural IgG ab to MUC1 are lower in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers than in healthy controls. Furthermore, in contrast to previous results in women with sporadic breast cancer, no elevated MUC1 IgG ab were seen in women at hereditary high risk who developed breast cancer. Prophylactic immunotherapy with MUC1 substrates may be a strategy to reduce the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, strengthening tumour immune surveillance.

No efficacy of annual gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers; an observational follow-up study.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are offered gynaecological screening with the intention to reduce mortality by detecting ovarian cancer at an early stage. We examined compliance and efficacy of gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. In this multicentre, observational, follow-up study we examined medical record data of a consecutive series of 888 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who started annual screening with transvaginal ultrasonography and serum CA125 between 1993 and 2005. The women were annually screened for 75% of their total period of follow-up. Compliance decreased with longer follow-up. Five of the 10 incident cancers were interval tumours, diagnosed in women with a normal screening result within 3-10 months before diagnosis. No difference in stage distribution between incident screen-detected and interval tumours was found. Eight of the 10 incident cancers were stage III/IV (80%). Cancers diagnosed in unscreened family members had a similar stage distribution (77% in stage III/IV). The observed number of cases detected during screening was not significantly higher than expected (Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR): 1.5, 95% confidence interval: 0.7-2.8). For the subgroup that was fully compliant to annual screening, a similar SIR was found (1.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-3.6). Despite annual gynaecological screening, a high proportion of ovarian cancers in BRCA1/2 carriers are interval cancers and the large majority of all cancers are diagnosed in advanced stages. Therefore, it is unlikely that annual screening will reduce mortality from ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.