New biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer: needed or redundant?

Objective: For many years, intensive research has been dedicated to the development of sensitive biomarkers to detect various malignant diseases, including for the differentiation between a benign or malignant ovarian mass. One of these biomarkers is human epididymal protein 4 (HE4), which has been shown to have a higher specificity than, and comparable sensitivity to CA125. HE4 is included in some predictive models. These new models have not yet been widely implemented in standard clinical care. The authors investigated the perceived need for new biomarkers and prediction models among Dutch gynecologists. Materials and Methods:A web-based survey containing 38 questions was sent to all gynecologists (in training) registered by the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Results: 313 respondents completed the survey (23% response rate), of which 29% were specialized in or devoted at least part of their practice to oncology. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicated that there is a need for a new biomarker. Respondents indicated that they would use HE4 primarily as a diagnostic tool in the case of a pelvic mass (57%), followed by screening in case of risk factors (30%), detection of recurrent disease (23%), monitoring therapy response (22%), and as a prognostic factor (10%). Only 11% would not use HE4 at all. Conclusion: Evaluating the need for new technologies and diagnostics, including biomarkers, is important to avoid expensive research with minimal clinical implications. In general, there is a perceived need for a new biomarker, if it can be used to improve the accuracy of diagnosis in patients with a pelvic mass.

Biomarkers; Ovarian cancer; HE4; Gynecologists; Survey.

[1] Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J., Turner J., Frost C., Grudzinskas J.G.: “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer”. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1990, 97, 922.

[2] Tingulstad S., Hagen B., Skjeldestad F.E., Onsrud M., Kiserud T., Halvorsen T., et al.: “Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses”. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1996, 103, 826.

[3] Geomini P.M., Kruitwagen R.F., Bremer G.L., Massuger L., Mol B.W.: “Should we centralise care for the patient suspected of having ovarian malignancy?” Gynecol. Oncol., 2011, 122, 95.

[4] Kaijser J., Sayasneh A., Van hoorde K., Ghaem-maghami S., Bourne T., Timmerman D., et al.: “Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. Hum. Reprod. Update, 2014, 20, 449.

[5] Timmerman D., Testa A.C., Bourne T., Ferrazzi E., Ameye L., Konstantinovic M.L., et al.: “Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: A multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group”. J. Clin. Oncol., 2005, 23, 8794.

[6] Timmerman D., Testa A.C., Bourne T., Ameye L., Jurkovic D., Van Holsbeke C., et al.: “Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2008, 31, 681.

[7] Kirchhoff C., Habben I., Ivell R., Krull N.: “A major human epididymis- specific cDNA encodes a protein with sequence homology to extracellular proteinase inhibitors”. Biol. Reprod., 1991, 45, 350.

[8] Hellstrom I., Hellstrom K.E.: “SMRP and HE4 as biomarkers for ovarian carcinoma when used alone and in combination with CA125 and/or each other”. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol., 2008, 622, 15.

[9] Macedo A.C., da Rosa M.I., Lumertz S., Medeiros L.R.: “Accuracy of Serum human epididymis protein 4 in ovarian cancer diagnosis”. Int. J. Gynecol Cancer, 2014, 24, 1222.

[10] Stiekema A., Lok C.A., Kenter G.G., Van Driel W.J., Vincent A.D., Korse C.M.: “A predictive model combining human epididymal protein 4 and radiologic features for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2014, 132, 573.

[11] Moore R.G., McMeekin D.S., Brown A.K., DiSilvestro P., Miller M.C., Allard W.J., et al.: “A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2009, 112, 40.

[12] Vernooij F., Heintz P., Witteveen E., van der Graaf Y.: “The outcomes of ovarian cancer treatment are better when provided by gynecologic oncologists and in specialized hospitals: a systematic review”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 105, 801.

[13] Engelen M.J., Kos H.E., Willemse P.H., Aalders J.G., De Vries E.G., Schaapveld M., et al.: ‘Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma”. Cancer, 2006, 106, 589.

[14] Ferraro S., Braga F., Lanzoni M., Boracchi P., Biganzoli E.M., Panteghini M.: ‘Serum human epididymis protein 4 vs. carbohydrate antigen 125 for ovarian cancer diagnosis: a systematic review”. Biochim. Clin., 2013, 37, 179.

[15] Wilailak S., Chan K.K., Chen C., Nam J., Ochiai K., Sabaratnam S., et al.: “Distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic mass utilizing an algorithm with HE4, menopausal status, and ultrasound findings”. J. Gynecol. Oncol., 2015, 26, 46.