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.

Risk of borderline and invasive ovarian tumours after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization in a large Dutch cohort.

BACKGROUND: Long-term effects of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the risk of ovarian malignancies are unknown. METHODS: We identified a nationwide historic cohort of 19,146 women who received IVF treatment in the Netherlands between 1983 and 1995, and a comparison group of 6006 subfertile women not treated with IVF. In 1997-1999, data on reproductive risk factors were obtained from 65% of women and data on subfertility (treatment) were obtained from the medical records. The incidence of ovarian malignancies (including borderline ovarian tumours) through 2007 was assessed through linkage with disease registries. The risk of ovarian malignancies in the IVF group was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile comparison group. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 14.7 years, the risk of borderline ovarian tumours was increased in the IVF group compared with the general population [standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-2.56]. The overall SIR for invasive ovarian cancer was not significantly elevated, but increased with longer follow-up after first IVF (P = 0.02); the SIR was 3.54 (95% CI = 1.62-6.72) after 15 years. The risks of borderline ovarian tumours and of all ovarian malignancies combined in the IVF group were significantly increased compared with risks in the subfertile comparison group (hazard ratios = 4.23; 95% CI = 1.25-14.33 and 2.14; 95% CI = 1.07-4.25, respectively, adjusted for age, parity and subfertility cause). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian stimulation for IVF may increase the risk of ovarian malignancies, especially borderline ovarian tumours. More large cohort studies are needed to confirm these findings and to examine the effect of IVF treatment characteristics.