Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2015, Article ID 681416, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/681416
Research Article

Serial Patterns of Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers in a Prediagnosis Longitudinal Dataset

1Women’s Cancer, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
2University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

Received 13 October 2015; Revised 8 December 2015; Accepted 16 December 2015

Academic Editor: Xin-Yuan Guan

Copyright © 2015 Oleg Blyuss et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. F. Jacob, M. Meier, R. Caduff et al., “No benefit from combining HE4 and CA125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 487–491, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. N. Ghasemi, S. Ghobadzadeh, M. Zahraei et al., “HE4 combined with CA125: favorable screening tool for ovarian cancer,” Medical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 1, article 808, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. A. Karlsen, E. V. Hogdall, I. J. Christensen 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,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 640–646, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. M. Montagnana, E. Danese, O. Ruzzenente 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?” Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 521–525, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. IARC, “GLOBOCAN 2012. Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012,” 2012, http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx.
  6. CRUK, Cancer Statistics: Ovarian Cancer Survival Statistics, 2014, http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/ovary/survival/.
  7. S. S. Buys, E. Partridge, A. Black et al., “Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 305, no. 22, pp. 2295–2302, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. U. Menon, A. Gentry-Maharaj, R. Hallett et al., “Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS),” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 327–340, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. E. Partridge, A. R. Kreimer, R. T. Greenlee et al., “Results from four rounds of ovarian cancer screening in a randomized trial,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 775–782, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. I. Heliström, J. Raycraft, M. Hayden-Ledbetter et al., “The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma,” Cancer Research, vol. 63, no. 13, pp. 3695–3700, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. L. J. Havrilesky, C. M. Whitehead, J. M. Rubatt et al., “Evaluation of biomarker panels for early stage ovarian cancer detection and monitoring for disease recurrence,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 374–382, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. G. Moore, D. S. McMeekin, A. K. Brown et al., “A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 40–46, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. R. Andersen, B. A. Goff, K. A. Lowe et al., “Use of a symptom index, CA125, and HE4 to predict ovarian cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 378–383, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. L. Anderson, M. McIntosh, L. Wu et al., “Assessing lead time of selected ovarian cancer biomarkers: a nested case-control study,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 26–38, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. T. Van Gorp, I. Cadron, E. Despierre et al., “HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 863–870, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. D. W. Cramer, R. C. Bast Jr., C. D. Berg et al., “Ovarian cancer biomarker performance in prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial specimens,” Cancer Prevention Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 365–374, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M. A. Karlsen, N. Sandhu, C. Høgdall et al., “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,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 379–383, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. W. McIntosh, C. Drescher, B. Karlan et al., “Combining CA 125 and SMR serum markers for diagnosis and early detection of ovarian carcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. N. Urban, J. D. Thorpe, L. A. Bergan et al., “Potential role of HE4 in multimodal screening for epithelial ovarian cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 103, no. 21, pp. 1630–1634, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. U. Hasholzner, L. Baumgartner, P. Stieber, W. Meier, K. Hofmann, and A. Fateh-Moghadam, “Significance of the tumour markers CA 125 II, CA 72-4, CASA and CYFRA 21-1 in ovarian carcinoma,” Anticancer Research, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 2743–2746, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. A. Bischof, V. Briese, D.-U. Richter, C. Bergemann, K. Friese, and U. Jeschke, “Measurement of glycodelin A in fluids of benign ovarian cysts, borderline tumours and malignant ovarian cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1639–1644, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M. S. Pepe, Z. Feng, H. Janes, P. M. Bossuyt, and J. D. Potter, “Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 100, no. 20, pp. 1432–1438, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. UKCTOCS (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN22488978; NCT00058032) was approved by the UK North West Multicentre Research Ethics Committees (North West MREC 00/8/34), 2003, https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
  24. S. J. Skates, D. K. Pauler, and I. J. Jacobs, “Screening based on the risk of cancer calculation from Bayesian hierarchical changepoint and mixture models of longitudinal markers,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 96, no. 454, pp. 429–439, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. E. R. DeLong, D. M. DeLong, and D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach,” Biometrics, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 837–845, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus