Early detection remains the most promising approach to improve long-term survival of patients with ovarian cancer. In a five-center casecontrol study, serum proteomic expressions were analyzed on 153 patients with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, 42 with other ovarian cancers, 166 with benign pelvic masses, and 142 healthy women. Data from patients with early stage ovarian cancer and healthy women at two centers were analyzed independently and the results cross-validated to discover potential biomarkers. The results were validated using the samples from two of the remaining centers. After protein identification, biomarkers for which an immunoassay was available were tested on samples from the fifth center, which included 41 healthy women, 41 patients with ovarian cancer, and 20 each with breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Three biomarkers were identified as follows: (a) apolipoprotein A1 (down-regulated in cancer); (b) a truncated form of transthyretin (down-regulated); and (c) a cleavage fragment of inter-␣-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain H4 (up-regulated). In independent validation to detect early stage invasive epithelial ovarian cancer from healthy controls, the sensitivity of a multivariate model combining the three biomarkers and CA125 [74% (95% CI, 52-90%)] was higher than that of CA125 alone [65% (95% CI, 43-84%)] at a matched specificity of 97% (95% CI, 89 -100%). When compared at a fixed sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 61-95%), the specificity of the model [94% (95% CI, 85-98%)] was significantly better than that of CA125 alone [52% (95% CI, 39 -65%)]. These biomarkers demonstrated the potential to improve the detection of early stage ovarian cancer.

Purpose Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from ASCO and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including pre-analytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. Results The literature search identified 1,338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. Conclusion The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity and clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, re-evaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.