Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1775590
Original Article

Evaluation of Human Epididymis Protein 4, Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, and Risk of Malignancy Index Efficiency for Ameliorating Sensitivity and Specificity for Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses

Sonia Chawla 
1   Department of Biochemistry, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, India
,
Gitanjali Goyal 
2   Department of Biochemistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab, India
,
Seema Grover 
3   Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, India
,
Sarita Nibhoria 
4   Department of Pathology, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, India
,
Jaswant Kaur 
5   Department of Biochemistry, Dr. S.S. Tantia Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Inadequacy of effective sensitive and specific screening modalities results in late-stage diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Cancer Antigen-125 (CA-125) individually possesses limited specificity for differentiating adnexal masses. The present study aimed to evaluate the Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) for ameliorating sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses.

Materials and Methods This study was conducted on 96 preoperative women with suspected adnexal mass (patients) and 48 healthy females without adnexal mass (controls) for the duration of 2 years. Both study participants were divided into two groups, pre- and postmenopausal. CA-125 and HE4 were done using commercially available kits. ROMA% and RMI were calculated. We validated their performances using histopathology as the gold standard. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS 21, Kruskal–Wallis, and Tukey's tests. The best cutoff points to best values of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also evaluated.

Results For differentiating benign from malignant masses in the premenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and area under the curve (AUC) were 93.7%, 78.3%, 65.2%, 96.6%, 0.892 for CA-125; 87.5%, 83.7%, 70%, 93.9%, 0.926 for HE4; 93.7%, 70.2%, 57.6%, 96.2%, 0.927 for ROMA; and 68.7%, 86.4%, 68.7%, 86.5%, 0.916 for RMI. While in the postmenopausal group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were 92.3%, 76.4%, 85.7%, 86.6%, 0.907 for CA-125; 78.5%, 94%, 95.6%, 80%, 0.955 for HE4; 92.3%, 94.1%, 96%, 88.8%, 0.968 for ROMA; and 88.4%, 88.2%, 92%, 83.3%, 0.943 for RMI.

Conclusion For differentiating benign from malignant masses more specifically in women with a suspected adnexal mass, ROMA and HE4 appear to be more effective than CA-125.

Keywords

CA-125 - HE4 - ROMA - RMI - premenopausal - postmenopausal


Publication History

Article published online:
25 September 2023

© 2023. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Heintz A, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P. et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 95 (Suppl. 01) S161-S192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion No. 477: the role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (03) 742-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hellström I, Raycraft J, Hayden-Ledbetter M. et al. The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 2003; 63 (13) 3695-3700
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Suh-Burgmann E. Long-term outcomes following conservative surgery for borderline tumor of the ovary: a large population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 103 (03) 841-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Engelen MJ, de Bruijn HW, Hollema H. et al. Serum CA 125, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CA 19-9 as tumor markers in borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 2000; 78 (01) 16-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sevinc A, Adli M, Kalender ME, Camci C. Benign causes of increased serum CA-125 concentration. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8 (12) 1054-1055
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cramer DW, Bast Jr RC, Berg CD. et al. Ovarian cancer biomarker performance in prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial specimens. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011; 4 (03) 365-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kirchhoff C. Molecular characterization of epididymal proteins. Rev Reprod 1998; 3 (02) 86-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Clauss A, Lilja H, Lundwall A. The evolution of a genetic locus encoding small serine proteinase inhibitors. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005; 333 (02) 383-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wang K, Gan L, Jeffery E. et al. Monitoring gene expression profile changes in ovarian carcinomas using cDNA microarray. Gene 1999; 229 (1–2): 101-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bingle L, Singleton V, Bingle CD. The putative ovarian tumour marker gene HE4 (WFDC2), is expressed in normal tissues and undergoes complex alternative splicing to yield multiple protein isoforms. Oncogene 2002; 21 (17) 2768-2773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Galgano MT, Hampton GM, Frierson Jr HF. Comprehensive analysis of HE4 expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Mod Pathol 2006; 19 (06) 847-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97 (10) 922-929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK. et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112 (01) 40-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lycke M, Kristjansdottir B, Sundfeldt K. A multicenter clinical trial validating the performance of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and risk of malignancy index. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 151 (01) 159-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Anastasi E, Granato T, Falzarano R. et al. The use of HE4, CA125 and CA72-4 biomarkers for differential diagnosis between ovarian endometrioma and epithelial ovarian cancer. J Ovarian Res 2013; 6 (01) 44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lin J, Qin J, Sangvatanakul V. Human epididymis protein 4 for differential diagnosis between benign gynecologic disease and ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 167 (01) 81-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Li F, Tie R, Chang K. et al. Does risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm excel human epididymis protein 4 and CA125 in predicting epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2012; 12: 258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wang J, Gao J, Yao H, Wu Z, Wang M, Qi J. Diagnostic accuracy of serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol 2014; 35 (06) 6127-6138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Richards A, Herbst U, Manalang J. et al. HE4, CA125, the Risk of Malignancy Algorithm and the Risk of Malignancy Index and complex pelvic masses - a prospective comparison in the pre-operative evaluation of pelvic masses in an Australian population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 55 (05) 493-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chen X, Zhou H, Chen R. et al. Development of a multimarker assay for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Clin Chim Acta 2015; 440: 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wilailak S, Chan KK, Chen CA. et al. Distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic mass utilizing an algorithm with HE4, menopausal status, and ultrasound findings. J Gynecol Oncol 2015; 26 (01) 46-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sandri MT, Bottari F, Franchi D. et al. Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass: correlation with pathological outcome. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128 (02) 233-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Terlikowska KM, Dobrzycka B, Witkowska AM. et al. Preoperative HE4, CA125 and ROMA in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses. J Ovarian Res 2016; 9 (01) 43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Holcomb K, Vucetic Z, Miller MC, Knapp RC. Human epididymis protein 4 offers superior specificity in the differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses in premenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (04) 358.e1-358.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Huhtinen K, Suvitie P, Hiissa J. et al. Serum HE4 concentration differentiates malignant ovarian tumours from ovarian endometriotic cysts. Br J Cancer 2009; 100 (08) 1315-1319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar