4.6 Article

Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass: Correlation with pathological outcome

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 128, 期 2, 页码 233-238

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.026

关键词

HE4; CA125; ROMA; Pelvic mass; Ovarian cancer detection

资金

  1. Abbott Diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The quality of first surgery is one of the most important prognostic factors in ovarian cancer patients. Pre-surgical distinction of benign and malignant pelvic mass plays a critical role in ovarian cancer management and survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of ROMA algorithm and of CA125 and HE4 in the triage of patients with a pelvic mass undergoing surgery, in order to discriminate benign from malignant disease. Methods. Three hundred and forty-nine pre- and post-menopausal women, aged 18 years or older undergoing surgery because of a pelvic mass were enrolled: serum concentrations of CA125 and HE4 were determined and ROMA was calculated for each sample. Results. Median serum CA125 and HE4 levels were higher in patients with EOC compared to subjects with benign disease (p<0.0001). The resultant accuracy (using Receiver Operating Characteristics, ROC Area) values for HE4, CA125 and ROMA showed a good performance ranging from 89.8% for CA125 in pre-menopausal patients to 93.3% for ROMA in post-menopausal patients: AUC for ROMA resulted significantly higher in comparison to CA125 alone (93.3% vs 90.3%, p = 0.0018) in post menopausal patients. A sub-analysis considering the 40 patients with endometrioid disease showed the highest accuracy of HE4 in these patients. Conclusions. Data presented confirm the accuracy of HE4 and of the ROMA algorithm in the distinction of ovarian carcinoma from benign disease, with a trend towards better performance for ROMA than for CA125 alone, statistically significant in postmenopausal patients. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据