Development of a multimarker assay for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant pelvic masses

Value of serum human epididymis secretory protein 4 as a marker for differential diagnosis of malignant and benign gynecological diseases of patients in southern China

“…However, HE4 display different results from those obtained by Moore et al whose positive rate was 12%, and by Ortiz-Munoz et al 12.6% in benign diseases [21]. Supplementary Table 1 summarized the recently studies of HE4, CA125, and ROMA for differentiating ovarian cancer from benign disease [14,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. However, these studies are not consistent with each other.…”

“…For ovarian cancer, ROMA demonstrated similar sensitivity and NPV to CA125, but higher specificity and PPV (specificity and PPV for ROMA compared to CA125, 80.6% vs. 70.2%, 54.1% vs. 43.6%, respectively). Many studies showed that ROMA algorithm displayed the best-balanced diagnostic performance to differentiate ovarian cancer from benign pelvic masses in the triage of patients to appropriate cancer centers for treatment by specialized gynecologic oncologists [14,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] (Supplementary Table 1). However, these studies are not consistent with each other, may be caused by the different geographical origins, the different numbers of subjects investigated and the different measured systems used.…”

The role of HE4 and CA125 in differentiation between malignant and non-malignant endometrial pathologies

“…No such statistically significant difference was found among postmenopausal patients. On the contrary, serum CA125 levels were not significantly different in the whole study population, or either in premenopausal or postmenopausal group [27].…”

Modification of cut-off values for HE4, CA125 and the ROMA algorithm for early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer detection: Results from 1021 cases in South China

“…More importantly, HE4 cutoff values are mostly provided by reagent manufacturers (Roche, Mannheim, Germany), and are mainly based on studies in Caucasian populations. HE4 levels vary between healthy Asian and Caucasian women [20], and since different cut-off values may affect the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnostic evaluations [21], there must be some doubt over the validity of this recommended cut-off value for HE4. The relevant cut-off values in the Chinese population should be established.…”