4.6 Article

Phase II biomarker trial of a multimarker diagnostic for ovarian cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 136, Issue 7, Pages 1079-1088

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-009-0755-5

Keywords

Ovarian cancer; Diagnostic; Multivariate classification

Categories

Funding

  1. Jack Brockhoff Foundation
  2. Fight Cancer Foundation
  3. BHP Community Trust
  4. NHMRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The primary hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the diagnostic performance (as assessed by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, AUC) of a multianalyte panel to correctly identify women with ovarian cancer was significantly greater than that for CA-125 alone. A retrospective, case-control study (phase II biomarker trial) was conducted that involved 362 plasma samples obtained from women with ovarian cancer (n = 150) and healthy controls (n = 212). A multivariate classification model was developed that incorporated five biomarkers of ovarian cancer, CA-125; C-reactive protein (CRP); serum amyloid A (SAA); interleukin 6 (IL-6); and interleukin 8 (IL-8) from a modelling cohort (n = 179). The performance of the model was evaluated using an independent validation cohort (n = 183) and compared with of CA-125 alone. The AUC for the biomarker panel was significantly greater than the AUC for CA-125 alone for a validation cohort (p < 0.01) and an early stage disease cohort (i.e. Stages I and II; p < 0.01). At a threshold of 0.3, the sensitivity and specificity of the multianalyte panel were 94.1 and 91.3%, respectively, for the validation cohort and 92.3 and 91.3%, respectively for an early stage disease cohort. The use of a panel of plasma biomarkers for the identification of women with ovarian cancer delivers a significant increase in diagnostic performance when compared to the performance of CA-125 alone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available