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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Sandri MT ，Bottari F ，Franchi D ，Boveri S ，Candiani M ，Ronzoni S ，Peiretti M ，Radice D ，Passerini R ，Sideri M ... -  《-》

HE4, CA125 and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) as diagnostic tools for ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass: An Italian multicenter study.

This multicenter study aims to evaluate HE4, CA125 and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) performance in the differential diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). A total of 405 patients referred to gynecological oncologist with suspicious pelvic mass requiring a surgery for identification of EOC were consecutively enrolled; 387 patients satisfied inclusion criteria: 290 benign diseases; 15 borderline neoplasia and 82 tumors (73 EOC). Good diagnostic performance in discriminating benign from EOC patients was obtained for CA125, HE4 and ROMA when calculating optimal cut-off values: premenopause, specificity (SP) >86.6, sensitivity (SN) >82.6, area under the curves (AUC)≥0.894; postmenopause, SP>93.2, SN>82, AUC≥0.928. Fixing SP at 98%, performance indicators obtained for benign vs EOC patients were: premenopause, SN:65.2%, positive predictive value (+PV): 75%, positive likelihood ratio (+LR): 26.4 for CA125; SN:69.6%, +PV:76.2%, +LR:28.1 for HE4; SN:69.6%, +PV: 80%; +LR:35.1 for ROMA; postmenopause, SN:88%, +PV: 95.7%, +LR:38.7 for CA125; SN:78%, +PV:95.1%, +LR:34.3 for HE4; SN:88%, +PV:97.8%, +LR:77.4 for ROMA. When using routine cut-off thresholds, ROMA showed better well-balanced values of both SP and SN (premenopause, SN:87%, SP:86.1%; postmenopause, SN:90%; SP:94.3%). Overall, ROMA showed well balanced diagnostic performance to differentiate EOC from benign diseases. Meaningful differences of +PVs and +LRs between HE4 and CA125 suggest that the two markers may play at least in part different roles in EOC diagnosis, with HE4 seeming to be more efficient than CA125 in ruling in EOC patients in the disease group, also in early stages tumors, both in pre and postmenopause.

Romagnolo C ，Leon AE ，Fabricio ASC ，Taborelli M ，Polesel J ，Del Pup L ，Steffan A ，Cervo S ，Ravaggi A ，Zanotti L ，Bandiera E ，Odicino FE ，Scattolo N ，Squarcina E ，Papadakis C ，Maggino T ，Gion M ... -  《-》

Evaluation of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) as diagnostic tools of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass.

Diagnostic factors are needed to improve the currently used serum CA125 and risk of malignancy index (RMI) in differentiating ovarian cancer (OC) from other pelvic masses, thereby achieving precise and fast referral to a tertiary center and correct selection for further diagnostics. The aim was to evaluate serum Human Epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) for these purposes. Serum from 1218 patients in the prospective ongoing pelvic mass study was collected prior to diagnosis. The HE4 and CA125 data were registered and evaluated separately and combined in ROMA and compared to RMI. 809 benign tumors, 79 borderline ovarian tumors, 252 OC (64 early and 188 late stage), 9 non-epithelial ovarian tumors and 69 non-ovarian cancers were evaluated. Differentiating between OC and benign disease the specificity was 62.2 (CA125), 63.2 (HE4), 76.5 (ROMA) and 81.5 (RMI) at a set sensitivity of 94.4 which corresponds to RMI=200. The areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.854 (CA125), 0.864 (HE4), 0,897 (ROMA) and 0.905 (RMI) for benign vs. early stage OC. For premenopausal benign vs. OC AUC were 0.925 (CA125), 0.905 (HE4), 0.909 (ROMA) and 0.945 (RMI). HE4 and ROMA helps differentiating OC from other pelvic masses, even in early stage OC. ROMA performs equally well as the ultrasound depending RMI and might be valuable as a first line biomarker for selecting high risk patients for referral to a tertiary center and further diagnostics. Further improvements of HE4 and ROMA in differentiating pelvic masses are still needed, especially regarding premenopausal women.

Karlsen MA ，Sandhu N ，Høgdall C ，Christensen IJ ，Nedergaard L ，Lundvall L ，Engelholm SA ，Pedersen AT ，Hartwell D ，Lydolph M ，Laursen IA ，Høgdall EV ... -  《-》

Comparison of HE4, CA125, and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm in the Prediction of Ovarian Cancer in Korean Women.

Cho HY ，Park SH ，Park YH ，Kim HB ，Kang JB ，Hong SH ，Kyung MS ... -  《-》

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?

Montagnana M ，Danese E ，Ruzzenente O ，Bresciani V ，Nuzzo T ，Gelati M ，Salvagno GL ，Franchi M ，Lippi G ，Guidi GC ... -  《-》