A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Clinics |
Texto Completo: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/40121 |
Resumo: | OBJECTIVE: Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms is essential for creating a system for patient referrals. Therefore, the contributions of the tumor markers CA125 and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as well as the risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk malignancy index (RMI) values were considered individually and in combination to evaluate their utility for establishing this type of patient referral system. METHODS: Patients who had been diagnosed with ovarian masses through imaging analyses (n = 128) were assessed for their expression of the tumor markers CA125 and HE4. The ROMA and RMI values were also determined. The sensitivity and specificity of each parameter were calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves according to the area under the curve (AUC) for each method. RESULTS: The sensitivities associated with the ability of CA125, HE4, ROMA, or RMI to distinguish between malignant versus benign ovarian masses were 70.4%, 79.6%, 74.1%, and 63%, respectively. Among carcinomas, the sensitivities of CA125, HE4, ROMA (pre-and post-menopausal), and RMI were 93.5%, 87.1%, 80%, 95.2%, and 87.1%, respectively. The most accurate numerical values were obtained with RMI, although the four parameters were shown to be statistically equivalent. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in accuracy between CA125, HE4, ROMA, and RMI for differentiating between types of ovarian masses. RMI had the lowest sensitivity but was the most numerically accurate method. HE4 demonstrated the best overall sensitivity for the evaluation of malignant ovarian tumors and the differential diagnosis of endometriosis. All of the parameters demonstrated increased sensitivity when tumors with low malignancy potential were considered low-risk, which may be used as an acceptable assessment method for referring patients to reference centers. |
id |
USP-19_cc982eeaa7a0524f30f57fd3c77beb77 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.usp.br:article/40121 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-19 |
network_name_str |
Clinics |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian massesTumor MarkersBiologicalOvarian NeoplasmsCA 125 AntigenEpididymal Secretory ProteinsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityOBJECTIVE: Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms is essential for creating a system for patient referrals. Therefore, the contributions of the tumor markers CA125 and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as well as the risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk malignancy index (RMI) values were considered individually and in combination to evaluate their utility for establishing this type of patient referral system. METHODS: Patients who had been diagnosed with ovarian masses through imaging analyses (n = 128) were assessed for their expression of the tumor markers CA125 and HE4. The ROMA and RMI values were also determined. The sensitivity and specificity of each parameter were calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves according to the area under the curve (AUC) for each method. RESULTS: The sensitivities associated with the ability of CA125, HE4, ROMA, or RMI to distinguish between malignant versus benign ovarian masses were 70.4%, 79.6%, 74.1%, and 63%, respectively. Among carcinomas, the sensitivities of CA125, HE4, ROMA (pre-and post-menopausal), and RMI were 93.5%, 87.1%, 80%, 95.2%, and 87.1%, respectively. The most accurate numerical values were obtained with RMI, although the four parameters were shown to be statistically equivalent. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in accuracy between CA125, HE4, ROMA, and RMI for differentiating between types of ovarian masses. RMI had the lowest sensitivity but was the most numerically accurate method. HE4 demonstrated the best overall sensitivity for the evaluation of malignant ovarian tumors and the differential diagnosis of endometriosis. All of the parameters demonstrated increased sensitivity when tumors with low malignancy potential were considered low-risk, which may be used as an acceptable assessment method for referring patients to reference centers.Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2012-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/4012110.6061/clinics/2012(05)06Clinics; Vol. 67 No. 5 (2012); 437-441Clinics; v. 67 n. 5 (2012); 437-441Clinics; Vol. 67 Núm. 5 (2012); 437-4411980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/40121/42987Anton, CristinaCarvalho, Filomena MarinoOliveira, Elci IsabelMaciel, Gustavo Arantes RosaBaracat, Edmund ChadaCarvalho, Jesus Paulainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2012-08-23T18:28:30Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/40121Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2012-08-23T18:28:30Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses |
title |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses |
spellingShingle |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses Anton, Cristina Tumor Markers Biological Ovarian Neoplasms CA 125 Antigen Epididymal Secretory Proteins Risk Assessment Sensitivity and Specificity |
title_short |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses |
title_full |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses |
title_fullStr |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses |
title_full_unstemmed |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses |
title_sort |
A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses |
author |
Anton, Cristina |
author_facet |
Anton, Cristina Carvalho, Filomena Marino Oliveira, Elci Isabel Maciel, Gustavo Arantes Rosa Baracat, Edmund Chada Carvalho, Jesus Paula |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Carvalho, Filomena Marino Oliveira, Elci Isabel Maciel, Gustavo Arantes Rosa Baracat, Edmund Chada Carvalho, Jesus Paula |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Anton, Cristina Carvalho, Filomena Marino Oliveira, Elci Isabel Maciel, Gustavo Arantes Rosa Baracat, Edmund Chada Carvalho, Jesus Paula |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Tumor Markers Biological Ovarian Neoplasms CA 125 Antigen Epididymal Secretory Proteins Risk Assessment Sensitivity and Specificity |
topic |
Tumor Markers Biological Ovarian Neoplasms CA 125 Antigen Epididymal Secretory Proteins Risk Assessment Sensitivity and Specificity |
description |
OBJECTIVE: Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms is essential for creating a system for patient referrals. Therefore, the contributions of the tumor markers CA125 and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as well as the risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk malignancy index (RMI) values were considered individually and in combination to evaluate their utility for establishing this type of patient referral system. METHODS: Patients who had been diagnosed with ovarian masses through imaging analyses (n = 128) were assessed for their expression of the tumor markers CA125 and HE4. The ROMA and RMI values were also determined. The sensitivity and specificity of each parameter were calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves according to the area under the curve (AUC) for each method. RESULTS: The sensitivities associated with the ability of CA125, HE4, ROMA, or RMI to distinguish between malignant versus benign ovarian masses were 70.4%, 79.6%, 74.1%, and 63%, respectively. Among carcinomas, the sensitivities of CA125, HE4, ROMA (pre-and post-menopausal), and RMI were 93.5%, 87.1%, 80%, 95.2%, and 87.1%, respectively. The most accurate numerical values were obtained with RMI, although the four parameters were shown to be statistically equivalent. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in accuracy between CA125, HE4, ROMA, and RMI for differentiating between types of ovarian masses. RMI had the lowest sensitivity but was the most numerically accurate method. HE4 demonstrated the best overall sensitivity for the evaluation of malignant ovarian tumors and the differential diagnosis of endometriosis. All of the parameters demonstrated increased sensitivity when tumors with low malignancy potential were considered low-risk, which may be used as an acceptable assessment method for referring patients to reference centers. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2012-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/40121 10.6061/clinics/2012(05)06 |
url |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/40121 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.6061/clinics/2012(05)06 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/40121/42987 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Clinics; Vol. 67 No. 5 (2012); 437-441 Clinics; v. 67 n. 5 (2012); 437-441 Clinics; Vol. 67 Núm. 5 (2012); 437-441 1980-5322 1807-5932 reponame:Clinics instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Clinics |
collection |
Clinics |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br |
_version_ |
1800222758687211520 |