Comparison of serum human epididymis protein 4 and carbohydrate antigen 125 as markers in ovarian cancer: A meta‑analysis

Zhen,Shuai; Bian,Li‑Hong; Chang,Li‑Li; Gao,Xin

doi:10.3892/mco.2014.279

Comparison of serum human epididymis protein 4 and carbohydrate antigen 125 as markers in ovarian cancer: A meta‑analysis

Authors:
- Shuai Zhen
- Li‑Hong Bian
- Li‑Li Chang
- Xin Gao
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710032, P.R. China, Department of Gynecology, Affiliated Hospital of Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100850, P.R. China, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing 100850, P.R. China
Published online on: April 16, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2014.279
Pages: 559-566

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the third most common type of gynecological cancer. measurements of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) levels have been suggested for improving the specificity of the laboratory identification of OC. For this meta‑analysis, the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies. All the included studies for diagnostic performance were combined with sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and areas under the SROC curves (AUC). A total of 25 studies including 4,729 patients were identified as eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivities and respective 95% CIs for HE4 and carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) were 0.74 (0.72‑0.76) and 0.74 (0.72‑0.76), respectively. The pooled specificities and respective 95% CIs for HE4 and CA125 were 0.90 (0.89‑0.91) and 0.83 (0.81‑0.84), respectively. The summary DORs and 95% CIs for HE4 and CA125 were 43.35 (29.13‑64.51) and 17.06 (10.97‑26.51), respectively and the AUCs for HE4 and CA125 were 0.8915 and 0.8538, respectively. In total, 9 studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of HE4 combined with CA125 for the diagnosis of OC. The pooled sensitivity and 95% CIs of HE4, CA125 and HE4+CA125 in this subgroup were 0.71 (0.67‑0.75), 0.74 (0.69‑0.78) and 0.90 (0.87‑0.92), respectively; the pooled specificity and 95% CIs of HE4, CA125 and HE4+CA125 were 0.92 (0.90‑0.94), 0.73 (0.69‑0.76) and 0.85 (0.82‑0.87), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of HE4 in distinguishing OC from other benign gynecological diseases was found to be to be superior to that of CA125 and the combination of HE4 and CA125 may enhance the diagnostic sensitivity.

View Figures

View References

1	Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 61:212–236. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Chang X, Ye X, Dong L, et al: Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as a serum tumor biomarker in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 21:852–858. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Fountain J, Trimble E and Birrer MJ: Summary and discussion of session recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 103:S23–S25. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Buamah P: Benign conditions associated with raised serum CA-125 concentration. J Surg Oncol. 75:264–265. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Yurkovetsky Z, Skates S, Lomakin A, et al: Development of a multimarker assay for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 28:2159–2166. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Cree IA: Improved blood tests for cancer screening: general or specific? BMC Cancer. 11:4992011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Drapkin R, von Horsten HH, Lin Y, et al: Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is overexpressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res. 65:2162–2169. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Galgano MT, Hampton GM and Frierson HF Jr: Comprehensive analysis of HE4 expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Mod Pathol. 19:847–853. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
9	Partheen K, Kristjansdottir B and Sundfeldt K: Evaluation of ovarian cancer biomarkers HE4 and CA-125 in women presenting with a suspicious cystic ovarian mass. J Gynecol Oncol. 22:244–252. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	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. 12:2582012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J and Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 62:1006–10012. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 283:2008–2012. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al: QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 155:529–536. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al: Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem. 49:1–6. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar
15	Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al: Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2:92002.PubMed/NCBI
16	DerSimonian R and Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 7:177–188. 1986. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Pepe MS, Feng Z, Janes H, et al: Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst. 100:1432–1438. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 56:1129–1135. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Walter SD: Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med. 21:1237–1256. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F and Botella J: Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I²index? Psychol Methods. 11:193–206. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J and Roderick P: A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess. 9:1–113. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Abdel-Azeez HA, Labib HA, Sharaf SM and Refai AN: HE4 and mesothelin: novel biomarkers of ovarian carcinoma in patients with pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 11:111–116. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
23	Anastasi E, Marchei GG, Viggiani V, et al: HE4: a new potential early biomarker for the recurrence of ovarian cancer. Tumor Biol. 31:113–119. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Andersen MR, Goff BA, Lowe KA, et al: Use of a Symptom Index, CA125, and HE4 to predict ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 116:378–383. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E, et al: HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer. 104:863–870. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
26	Holcomb K, Vucetic Z, Miller MC and 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. 205:358.e1–358.e6. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Jacob F, Meier M, Caduff R, et al: No benefit from combining HE4 and CA125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol. 121:487–491. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Montagnana M, Danese E, Ruzzenente O, et al: The ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) for estimating the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women presenting with pelvic mass: is it really useful? Clin Chem Lab Med. 49:521–525. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, et al: The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 108:402–408. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Nolen B, Velikokhatnaya L, Marrangoni A, et al: Serum biomarker panels for the discrimination of benign from malignant cases in patients with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 117:440–445. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Park Y, Kim Y, Lee EY, et al: Reference ranges for HE4 and CA125 in a large Asian population by automated assays and diagnostic performances for ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 130:1136–1144. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Dong L, Cheng XH, Ye X, et al: The values of serum human epididymis secretory protein 4 and CA(125) assay in the diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. Chin J Obstet Gynecol. 43:931–936. 2008.(In Chinese).
33	Wu XW, Fu GY, Wang R and Shi XQ: Significance of using combined assays of serum human epididymis secretory protein 4, CA125 and ROMA in the diagnosis of ovarian malignancy and pelvic mass. J Basic Clin Oncol. 5:252012.
34	Yang C, Song ML, Zhong HB, et al: The differential diagnostic value of HE4, CA125 and the risk of ovarian malignancy aligorithm in ovarian tumor. Suzhou Univ J Med Sci. 30:42010.
35	Huang S and Zeng Q: The clinical value of HE4 and CA125 combined with sB7-H4 in early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Hebei Med. 17:4432011.(In Chinese).
36	Li Q, Song X, Wu Q, et al: Clinical application of combined HE4 and CA125 differentiate malignant ovarian tumors from ovarian endometriotic cysts. Mod Oncol. 21:22013.
37	Liu G, Wang A, Liu Q, et al: Combined detection of serum CA125 and human epididymis protein 4 levels in ovarian cancer. Chin J Clin Lab Sci. 28:119–121. 2010.(In Chinese).
38	Jiang DL, Sun JM, Cai LL, et al: Changes and clinical significance of serum HE4 in patients with ovarian cancer. J Pract Med. 26:142010.
39	Jing XG, Wang GJ, Pei YX, et al: Diagnostic value of combined measurement of CA125, HE4 and imaging examination patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. J Third Mil Med Univ. 33:62011.
40	Yao YX and Hong W: Clinical significance of detecting serum HE4, CA125 and CA724 levels in diagnoses of ovarian malignancies. Labeled Immunoassays Clin Med. 19:32012.(In Chinese).
41	Yao YL, Liu Q and Li XY: The diagnostic values of combined determination of serum tumor markers HE4, TPS and CA125 levels in patients with ovarian cancer. J Radioimmunol. 23:42010.(In Chinese).
42	Wang KY, Leng JH, Zheng H and Jiang LH: Studies on value of combination of human epididymis protein 4 and CA125 in patients with ovarian cancer. Chin J Health Lab Technol. 20:1139–1140. 2010.
43	Li ZJ, Zheng YQ and Xu XF: Clinic value of HE4, CA125 combined with risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in the diagnosis for ovarian cancer. J Chin Oncol. 19:219–222. 2013.
44	Ke and Liu F: Serum HE4 and CA125 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Mod Hosp. 10:52010.
45	Lin YY, Chen Y, Hu MH, et al: Significance of HE4 detection for diagnosis of ovarian cancer as compared with CA125 in 69 cases. Curr Immun. 33:12013.
46	Moore RG and Bast RC Jr: How do you distinguish a malignant pelvic mass from a benign pelvic mass? Imaging, biomarkers, or none of the above. J Clin Oncol. 25:4159–4161. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
47	Lin J, Qin J and 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. 167:81–85. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
48	Yu S, Yang HJ, Xie SQ and Bao YX: Diagnostic value of HE4 for ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 50:1439–1446. 2012.PubMed/NCBI