Volume 20 Issue 2
Feb.  2022
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Article Navigation >  Chinese Journal of General Practice  > 2022  >  20(2): 190-194
NIE Dan-dan, WANG Li-hua, LI Yan-hua. Diagnostic value of ROMA and CPH-I in early epithelial ovarian cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2022, 20(2): 190-194. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002309
Citation: NIE Dan-dan, WANG Li-hua, LI Yan-hua. Diagnostic value of ROMA and CPH-I in early epithelial ovarian cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2022, 20(2): 190-194. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002309
shu

Diagnostic value of ROMA and CPH-I in early epithelial ovarian cancer

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002309

  • Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui 233004, China

Funds:

 KJ2019A0398

  • Received Date: 2021-04-30
    Available Online: 2022-03-04
    Abstract
  •   Objective  To investigate the diagnostic value of risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen index (CPH-I) in early epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).  Methods  A total of 139 patients with epithelial ovarian tumour (including 52 patients with early EOC, 24 patients with epithelial ovarian borderline tumour and 63 patients with epithelial ovarian benign tumour) admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College from January 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively studied. Age, menopausal status and serum HE4 and CA125 values were collected for ROMA and CPH-I. The diagnostic accuracy of these indicators was measured by plotting the area under the curve (AUC), and the sensitivity and specificity of CA125, HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for each group were calculated.  Results  The AUC of CPH-I, ROMA and HE4 was superior to that of CA125 in all groups. The Results of inter-group comparison showed that the four indexes were early malignant group>borderline group>benign group. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). CA125 and ROMA were more sensitive than HE4 and CPH-I in predicting benign or malignant ovarian neoplasms (88.46%, 92.31% vs. 82.69%, 86.54%). HE4 and CPH-I were more specific than CA125 and ROMA (93.65%, 96.83% vs. 76.19%, 90.48%). After grouping according to menopausal status, in the comparison between the early malignant group and the benign group, post-menopausal ROMA and CPH-I had higher AUC, sensitivity and specificity than pre-menopausal ROMA (0.995, 0.992 vs. 0.905, 0.935; 96.77%, 96.77% vs. 85.71%, 71.43%; 95.83%, 95.83% vs. 87.18%, 94.87%).  Conclusion  ROMA is more sensitive to early EOC diagnosis, and CPH-I is more specific than ROMA. ROMA and CPH-I have high sensitivity and specificity in post-menopausal patients.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
  • loading
    • References(25)
  • [1]
    SIEGEL R L, MILLER K D, FUCHS H E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2021[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(1): 7-33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654
    [2]
    陈姝, 张競, 李燕华. CD24和Siglec-10在上皮性卵巢癌组织中的表达及意义[J]. 中华全科医学, 2021, 19(3): 428-431. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SYQY202103028.htm
    [3]
    LHEUREUX S, GOURLEY C, VERGOTE I, et al. Epithelial ovarian cancer[J]. Lancet, 2019, 393(10177): 1240-1253. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32552-2
    [4]
    NATOLI M, BONITO N, ROBINSON J D, et al. Human ovarian cancer in-trinsic mechanisms regulate lymphocyte activation in response to im-mune checkpoint blockade[J]. Cancer Immunol Immunother, 2020, 69(8): 1391-1401. doi: 10.1007/s00262-020-02544-5
    [5]
    ASLAN K, ONAN M A, YILMAZ C, et al. Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA score and ultrasound score in the differential diagnosis of ovarian masses[J]. Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod, 2020, 49(5): 101713. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101713
    [6]
    DUMONT S, JAN Z, HEREMANS R, et al. Organoids of epithelial ovarian cancer as an emerging preclinical in vitro tool: A review[J]. J Ovarian Res, 2019, 12(1): 105. doi: 10.1186/s13048-019-0577-2
    [7]
    CHARKHCHI P, CYBULSKI C, GRONWALD J, et al. CA125 and ovarian cancer: A comprehensive review[J]. Cancers(Basel), 2020, 12(12): 3730.
    [8]
    SCALETTA G, PLOTTI F, LUVERO D, et al. The role of novel biomarker HE4 in the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of ovarian cancer: A systematic review[J]. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2017, 17(9): 827-839. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2017.1360138
    [9]
    CHENG H Y, ZENG L, YE X, et al. Age and menopausal status are important factors influencing the serum human epididymis secretory protein 4 level: A prospective cross-sectional study in healthy Chinese people[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2020, 133(11): 1285-1291. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000785
    [10]
    MOORE R G, MCMEEKIN D S, BROWN A K, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 112(1): 40-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.031
    [11]
    DOCHEZ V, CAILLON H, VAUCEL E, et al. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review[J]. J Ovarian Res, 2019, 12(1): 28. doi: 10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7
    [12]
    KARLSEN M A, HOGDALL E V, CHRISTENSEN I J, et al. A novel diagnostic index combining HE4, CA125 and age may improve triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer-An international multicenter study in women with an ovarian mass[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 138(3): 640-646. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.021
    [13]
    HENDERSON J T, WEBBER E M, SAWAYA G F. Screening for ovarian cancer: Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force[J]. JAMA, 2018, 319(6): 595-606. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21421
    [14]
    CHUDECKA-GLAZ A, CYMBALUK-PLOSKA A, WEZOWSKA M, et al. Could HE4 level measurements during first-line chemotherapy predict response to treatment among ovarian cancer patients?[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(3): e0194270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194270
    [15]
    KIM B, PARK Y, KIM B, et al. Diagnostic performance of CA 125, HE4, and risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm for ovarian cancer[J]. J Clin Lab Anal, 2019, 33(1): e22624. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22624
    [16]
    CHOI H J, LEE Y Y, SOHN I, et al. Comparison of CA 125 alone and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in patients with adnexal mass: A multicenter study[J]. Curr Probl Cancer, 2020, 44(2): 100508. doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2019.100508
    [17]
    GENTRY-MAHARAJ A, BLYUSS O, RYAN A, et al. Multi-marker longitudinal algorithms incorporating HE4 and CA125 in ovarian cancer screening of postmenopausal women[J]. Cancers(Basel), 2020, 12(7): 1931. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/343103659_Multi-Marker_Longitudinal_Algorithms_Incorporating_HE4_and_CA125_in_Ovarian_Cancer_Screening_of_Postmenopausal_Women
    [18]
    ZHANG L, CHEN Y, WANG K. Comparison of CA125, HE4, and ROMA index for ovarian cancer diagnosis[J]. Curr Probl Cancer, 2019, 43(2): 135-144. doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2018.06.001
    [19]
    YANG W L, LU Z, BAST R C J R. The role of biomarkers in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer[J]. Expert Rev Mol Diagn, 2017, 17(6): 577-591. doi: 10.1080/14737159.2017.1326820
    [20]
    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[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2018, 151(1): 159-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.08.025
    [21]
    邢华蕊, 冯亚妮, 黎小芳, 等. 血清肿瘤标志物水平与卵巢癌患者病理特征及预后的关系分析[J]. 河北医学, 2020, 26(8): 1404-1408. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6233.2020.08.040
    [22]
    DOCHEZ V, RANDET M, RENAUDEAU C, et al. Efficacy of HE4, CA125, risk of malignancy index and risk of ovarian malignancy index to detect ovarian cancer in women with presumed benign ovarian tumours: A prospective, multicentre trial[J]. J Clin Med, 2019, 8(11): 1784. doi: 10.3390/jcm8111784
    [23]
    Amerivan College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Practice bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 128(5): e210-e226. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768
    [24]
    YOSHIDA A, DERCHAIN S F, PITTA D R, et al. Comparing the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA): Two equivalent ways to differentiate malignant from benign ovarian tumors before surgery?[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2016, 140(3): 481-485. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.023
    [25]
    龚时鹏, 陈咏宁, 张雅迪, 等. 血清CA125和HE4水平及ROMA、CPH-I模型在鉴别卵巢良恶性肿瘤中的价值对比[J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2019, 39(12): 1393-1401. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DYJD201912003.htm
    • Relative Articles
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(3)  / Tables(4)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article views (324) PDF downloads(34) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    Address：No. 287, Changhuai Road, Bengbu, Anhui Province, 233004, P.R.ChinaphoneNo：0552-3066635； 0552-3051890Email：zhqkyx@163.com

    Copyright © Chinese Journal of General Practice皖ICP备2020018345号-2

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd.    

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return