Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic Value of Human Epididymis Protein 4 Compared with Mesothelin for Ovarian Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Lin, Jia-Ying (Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) ;
  • Qin, Jin-Bao (Department of Vascular Surgery, the Ninth People's Hospital, the Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine) ;
  • Li, Xiao-Yan (Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University) ;
  • Dong, Ping (Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) ;
  • Yin, Bing-De (Department of Urology, Shanghai First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University)
  • Published : 2012.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among gynecologic cancers because of the lack of effective early detection methods. Accuracies of the human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) and mesothelin in detecting ovarian cancer have never been systematically assessed. The current systematic review aimed to tackle this issue. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched (September 1995-November 2011) for studies on the diagnostic performances of HE4 and mesothelin in differentiating ovarian cancer from other benign gynecologic diseases. QUADAS items were used to evaluate the qualities of the studies. Meta-DiSc software was used to handle data from the included studies and to examine heterogeneity. All included studies for diagnostic performance were combined with sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves, and areas under the SROC curves (AUC). Results: A total of 18 studies and 3,865 patients were eligible for the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity estimates for HE4 (74.4%) were significantly higher than those for mesothelin (49.3%). The pooled specificity estimates for mesothelin (94.5%) were higher than those for HE4 (85.8%). The pooled DOR estimates for HE4 (26.22) were higher than those for mesothelin (24.01). The SROC curve for HE4 showed better diagnostic accuracy than that for mesothelin. The PLR and NLR of HE4 were 6.33 (95% CI: 3.58 to 11.18) and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.21 to 0.34), respectively. The PLR and NLR for mesothelin were 11.0 (95% CI: 6.21 to 19.59) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.42 to 0.62), respectively. The combination of the two tumor markers or their combination with CA-125 increased sensitivity and specificity to different extents. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of HE4 in differentiating ovarian cancer from other benign gynecologic diseases is better than that of soluble mesothelin-related protein. Combinations of two or more tumor markers show more sensitivity and specificity.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdel-Azeez HA, Labib HA, Sharaf SM, Refaie AN (2010). He4 and mesothelin: Novel biomarkers of ovarian carcinoma in patients with pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 111-6.
  2. Badgwell D, Lu Z, Cole L, et al (2007). Urinary mesothelin provides greater sensitivity for early stage ovarian cancer than serum mesothelin, urinary hcg free beta subunit and urinary hcg beta core fragment. Gynecol Oncol, 106, 490-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.04.022
  3. Bast RC, Jr (2004). Early detection of ovarian cancer: New technologies in pursuit of a disease that is neither common nor rare. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc, 115, 233-47; discussion 47-8.
  4. Chang K, Pastan I (1996). Molecular cloning of mesothelin, a differentiation antigen present on mesothelium, mesotheliomas, and ovarian cancers. P Natl Acad Sci USA, 93, 136-40. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.1.136
  5. Chang XH, Ye X, Dong L, et al (2011). Human epididymis protein 4 (he4) as a serum tumor biomarker in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 21, 852-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e31821a3726
  6. Deeks JJ (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ, 323, 157-62.
  7. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials, 7, 177-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
  8. Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P (2005). A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Asses, 9, 1-6.
  9. Drapkin R, von Horsten HH, Lin Y, et al (2005). Human epididymis protein 4 (he4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is overexpressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res, 65, 2162-9. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3924
  10. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM (2003). The diagnostic odds ratio: A single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol, 56, 1129-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00177-X
  11. Hassan R, Remaley AT, Sampson ML, et al (2006). Detection and quantitation of serum mesothelin, a tumor marker for patients with mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res, 12, 447-53. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1477
  12. Hellstrom I, Raycraft J, Hayden-Ledbetter M, et al (2003). The he4 (wfdc2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res, 63, 3695-700.
  13. Holcomb K, Vucetic Z, Miller C, Knapp RC (2011). 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.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.05.017
  14. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or i2 index? Psychol Methods, 11, 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
  15. Huhtinen K, Suvitie P, Hiissa J, et al (2009). Serum he4 concentration differentiates malignant ovarian tumours from ovarian endometriotic cysts. Brit J Cancer, 100, 1315-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605011
  16. Jacob F, Meier M, Caduff R, et al (2011). No benefit from combining he4 and ca125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol, 121, 487-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.02.022
  17. Jacobs I, Bast RC, Jr (1989). The ca 125 tumour-associated antigen: A review of the literature. Hum Reprod, 4, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/4.suppl_1.1
  18. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL (1994). Users guides to the medical literature .3. How to use an article about a diagnostic-test .A. Are the results of the study valid. Jama-J Am Med Assoc, 271, 389-91. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510290071040
  19. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al (2006). Cancer statistics, 2006. CA: Cancer J Clin, 56, 106-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.56.2.106
  20. McIntosh MW, Drescher C, Karlan B, et al (2004). Combining ca 125 and smr serum markers for diagnosis and early detection of ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol, 95, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.07.039
  21. Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, Bozzetti MC (2009). Accuracy of ca 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: A quantitative systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 142, 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.08.011
  22. Montagnana M, Lippi G, Ruzzenente O, et al (2009). The utility of serum human epididymis protein 4 (he4) in patients with a pelvic mass. J Clin Lab Anal, 23, 331-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.20340
  23. Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, et al (2008). The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol, 108, 402-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.10.017
  24. Nolen B, Velikokhatnaya L, Marrangoni A, et al (2010). Serum biomarker panels for the discrimination of benign from malignant cases in patients with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol, 117, 440-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.02.005
  25. Palmer C, Duan XB, Hawley S, et al (2008). Systematic evaluation of candidate blood markers for detecting ovarian cancer. Plos One, 3, e2633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002633
  26. Park Y, Kim Y, Lee EY, Lee JH, Kim HS (2012). Reference ranges for he4 and ca125 in a large asian population by automated assays and diagnostic performances for ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer, 130, 1136-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.26129
  27. Salceda S, Tang T, Kmet M, et al (2005). The immunomodulatory protein b7-h4 is overexpressed in breast and ovarian cancers and promotes epithelial cell transformation. Exp Cell Res, 306, 128-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2005.01.018
  28. Scholler N, Fu N, Yang Y, et al (1999). Soluble member(s) of the mesothelin/megakaryocyte potentiating factor family are detectable in sera from patients with ovarian carcinoma. P Natl Acad Sci USA, 96, 11531-6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.20.11531
  29. Scholler N, Lowe KA, Bergan LA, et al (2008). Use of yeastsecreted in vivo biotinylated recombinant antibodies (biobodies) in bead-based elisa. Clin Cancer Res, 14, 2647-55. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1442
  30. Shah CA, Lowe KA, Paley P, et al (2009). Influence of ovarian cancer risk status on the diagnostic performance of the serum biomarkers mesothelin, he4, and ca125. Cancer Epidem Biomar, 18, 1365-72. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1034
  31. Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E, et al (2011). He4 and ca125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: Prospective validation of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm. Brit J Cancer, 104, 863-70. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6606092
  32. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J(2003). The development of quadas: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 3, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
  33. Williams TI, Toups KL, Saggese DA, et al (2007). Epithelial ovarian cancer: Disease etiology, treatment, detection, and investigational gene, metabolite, and protein biomarkers. J Proteome Res, 6, 2936-62. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr070041v

Cited by

  1. Role of a Risk of Malignancy Index in Clinical Approaches to Adnexal Masses vol.15, pp.18, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.18.7793
  2. Modification of Cutoff Values for HE4, CA125, the Risk of Malignancy Index, and the Risk of Malignancy Algorithm for Ovarian Cancer Detection in Jakarta, Indonesia vol.15, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.5.1949
  3. Accuracy of Serum Human Epididymis Protein 4 in Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis vol.24, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000192
  4. Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Ovarian Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis vol.16, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.3.869
  5. Adnexal Mass in the Postmenopausal Patient vol.58, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000085
  6. Comparison of Serum Human Epididymis Protein 4 and Carbohydrate Antigen 125 as Markers in Endometrial Cancer vol.26, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000621
  7. Mesothelin as a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis vol.88, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201620150107
  8. Preoperative HE4, CA125 and ROMA in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses vol.9, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-016-0254-7
  9. The role of novel biomarker HE4 in the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of ovarian cancer: a systematic review vol.17, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2017.1360138
  10. ELF5 in epithelial ovarian carcinoma tissues and biological behavior in ovarian carcinoma cells vol.37, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2017.5418
  11. Assessment of the clinicopathological relevance of mesothelin level in plasma, peritoneal fluid, and tumor tissue of epithelial ovarian cancer patients vol.40, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1010428318804937