Evaluation of serum CA 125 level and its relation to surgical, histopathologic and ultrasonographic findings in patients with pelvic mass

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the levels of tumour marker CA 125 antigen and pelvic tumour size, histopathological type, stage, bilateral status, ascites, type of surgery, and postoperative complications. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 203 patients with a pelvic mass who were visited in the Shahid Sadoughi hospital in Yazd, Iran from 2007 to 2010. Data were analyzed by software SPSS v.14. Results: Statistical analysis, based on Fisher’s exact test, showed that patients with pelvic mass who presented with either of bilateral involvement/ ascites (p = 0.000), higher stage (p = 0.001), inability for complete resection (p = 0.000), or postoperative complications (p = 0.001) had significantly higher serum concentrations of CA 125 antigen. There was no relationship between serum level of CA 125 and such variables as tumor size (p = 0.883) and abdominal ultrasound findings (p = 0.297). Conclusion: Using CA 125 as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in patients with newly-discovered pelvic mass can be helpful in some aspects, but cannot estimate size of the tumor and its solid/cystic status. It also cannot predict post-surgical complications of malignant pelvic masses.

CA 125 antigen; Pelvic neoplasms; Tumour marker; Histopathology; Survival; Surgical complication.

[1] Schorge J.O., Schaffer J.I., Halvorson L.M., Hoffman B.L., Brad-shaw K.D., Cunningham F.G.: “Pelvic mass”. In: Schorge J.O., Schaffer J.I., Halvorson L.M., Hoffman B.L., Bradshaw K.D., Cun-ningham F.G. (eds). Williams Gynecology. 22nd ed. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill Professional, 2008, 197.

[2] Moore R.G., Jabre-Raughley M., Brown A.K., Robison K.M., Miller M. C., Allard W.J., et al.: “Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay vs the Risk of Malignancy Index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2010, 228, 264. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.03.043. Epub 2010 May 14.

[3] Borgfeldt C., Andolf E.: “Transvaginalsonographic ovarian findings in a random sample of women 25-40 years old”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 1999, 13, 345.

[4] Zacharakis D., Thomakos N., Biliatis I., Rodolakis A., Simou M., Daskalakis G., et al.: “Ultrasonographic markers and preoperative CA-125 to distinguish between borderline ovarian tumors and stage I ovarian cancer.” Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 2013, 92, 285. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12046. Epub 2012 Dec 21.

[5] Badgwell D., Bast R.C. Jr.: “Early detection of ovarian cancer”. Dis. Markers, 2007, 23, 397.

[6] Barney S.P., Muller C.Y., Bradshaw K.D.: “Pelvic masses”. Med. Clin. North Am., 2008, 92, 1143. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2008.04.007.

[7] Malati T.: “Tumour markers: an overview”. Indian Journal of Clin-ical Biochemistry, 2007, 22, 17.

[8] Rein B.J., Gupta S., Dada R., Safi J., Michener C., Agarwal A.: “Potential markers for detection and monitoring of ovarian cancer”. J. Oncol., 2011, 475983. doi: 10.1155/2011/475983. Epub 2011 Apr 11.

[9] Johnson C.C., Kessel B., Riley T.L., Ragard L.R., Williams C.R., Xu J. L., et al.: “The epidemiology of CA-125 in women without evidence of ovarian cancer in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO)”. Screening Trial. Gynecol. Oncol., 2008, 110, 383. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.05.006. Epub 2008 Jun 30.

[10] Pepe M.S., Etzioni R., Feng Z., Potter J.D., Thompson M.L., Thornquist M. et al.: “Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 2001, 93, 1054.

[11] Campos S.M., Ghosh S.: “A current review of targeted therapeutics for ovarian cancer”. J. Oncol., 2010, 2010, 149362.

[12] McAlpine J.N., Eisenkop S.M., Spirtos N.M.: “Tumour heterogeneity in ovarian cancer as demonstrated by in vitro chemoresistance assays”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2008, 110, 360.

[13] McDonald J.M., Doran S., DeSimone C.P., Ueland F.R., DePriest P. D., Ware RA. et al.: “Predicting Risk of Malignancy in Adnexal Masses”. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2010, 115, 687. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d44053.

[14] Bristow R.E., Smith A., Zhang Z., Chan D.W., Crutcher G., Fung E. T., Munroe D.G.: “Ovarian malignancy risk stratification of the adnexal mass using a multivariate index assay.”. Gynecol Oncol., 2013, 128, 252. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.022. Epub 2012 Nov 21.

[15] Gadducci A., Cosio S., Zola P., Landoni F., Maggino T., Sartori E.: “Surveillance procedures for patients treated for epithelial ovarian cancer: A review of the literature”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2007, 17, 21.

[16] Sugiyama T., Nishida T., Komai K., Nishimura H., Yakushiji M., Nishimura H.: “Comparison of CA 125 assays with abdominopelvic computed tomography and transvaginal ultrasound in monitoring of ovarian cancer”. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 1996, 54, 251.

[17] Cooper B.C., Sood A.K., Davis C.S., Ritchie J.M., Sorosky J.I., Anderson B., Buller R.E.: “Preoperative CA 125 levels: an independent prognostic factor for epithelial ovarian cancer”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2002, 100, 59.

[18] Durdević S., Stojanović S., Marijana B.N., Maksimović M.: “Rational application of tumour marker CA 125 in gynecological oncology”. Med. Pregl., 2010, 63, 195.

[19] Skates S.J., Jacobs I.J., Knapp R.C.: “Tumour markers in screening for ovarian cancer”. In: Ovarian cancer: methods and protocols, J. M.S. Bartlett (ed). Totowa: 2000, Humana Press, 61.

[20] Oltmann S.C., Garcia N., Barber R., Huang R., Hicks B., Fischer A.: “Can we preoperatively risk stratify ovarian masses for malig-nancy?”. J. Pediatr. Surg., 2010, 45, 130. doi: 10.1016/j.jped-surg.2009.10.022.

[21] Ayhan A, Guven S, Guven ES, Kucukali T.: “Is there a correlation between tumor marker panel and tumor size and histopathology in well staged patients with borderline ovarian tumors?”. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 2007, 86, 484.

[22] Jun-qing M.A.: “Clinical values of four markers in diagnosis of pelvic mass”. Anhui Med. Pharmaceut. J., 2007, 1, 36.

[23] Schutter E.M., Davelaar E.M., van Kamp G.J., Verstraeten R.A., Kenemans P., Verheijen R.H.: “The differential diagnostic potential of a panel of tumour markers (CA 125, CA 15-3, and CA 72-4 antigens) in patients with a pelvic mass”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2002, 187, 957.

[24] van der Velde N.M., Mourits M.J., Arts H.J., de Vries J., Leegte B. K., Dijkhuis G., et al.: “Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers?”. Int. J. Cancer, 2009, 124, 919 doi: 10.1002/ijc.24038.

[25] Milojkovic M., Hrgovic Z., Hrgovic I., Jonat W., Maass N., Buković D.: “Significance of CA 125 serum level in discrimination between benign and malignant masses in the pelvis”. Arch Gynecol. Obstet., 2004, 269, 176. Epub 2003 Oct 14.

[26] Behtash N., Rahmani M., Ghotbizadeh F., Karimi Zarchi M., Mousavi A.: “Ultrasonography and computed tomography for management of adnexal masses in Iranian patients with suspected ovarian cancer: results of a prospective study”. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev., 2009, 10, 201.

[27] Yousefi Z., Homaey F., Shakeri M.T.: “Determining the prevalence, risk factors and management of borderline ovarian tumors”. J. Reprod. Infertil., 2007, 8, 38.