Developments in ovarian cancer markers and algorithms

Ovarian carcinoma contributes significantly to cancer-associated mortality in women, highlighting the urgent need for effective early detection strategies. Despite CA-125 (Cancer antigen 125) being widely used, it lacks reliable biomarkers for early diagnosis, requiring the exploration of alternative biomarkers such as miRNA, lncRNA and DNA methylation. As well, algorithms such as ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm), RMI (Risk of Malignancy Index) and OVA1 (Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment Algorithm 1) aim to enhance early detection accuracy. With an emphasis on epigenetic changes, this review synthesizes recent advances in molecular biomarkers and algorithms for early ovarian cancer diagnosis, providing insights into improving detection accuracy and managing disease.

Molecular markers; Cancer antigen 125; Human epididymis protein 4; RMI; ROMA; Ovarian cancer

[1] Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JWW, Comber H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. European Journal of Cancer. 2013; 49: 1374–1403.

[2] Lheureux S, Braunstein M, Oza AM. Epithelial ovarian cancer: evolution of management in the era of precision medicine. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2019; 69: 280–304.

[3] Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, et al. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68: 284–296.

[4] Bentivegna E, Morice P, Uzan C, Gouy S. Fertility-sparing surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer. Future Oncology. 2016; 12: 389–398.

[5] Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, Potter JD, Thompson ML, Thornquist M, et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2001; 93: 1054–1061.

[6] Karam AK, Karlan BY. Ovarian cancer: the duplicity of CA125 measurement. Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology. 2010; 7: 335–339.

[7] Zhen S, Bian LH, Chang LL, Gao X. Comparison of serum human epididymis protein 4 and carbohydrate antigen 125 as markers in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Molecular and Clinical Oncology. 2014; 2: 559–566.

[8] Zurawski VR, Knapp RC, Einhorn N, Kenemans P, Mortel R, Ohmi K, et al. An initial analysis of preoperative serum CA 125 levels in patients with early stage ovarian carcinoma. Gynecologic Oncology. 1988; 30: 7–14.

[9] Drapkin R, von Horsten HH, Lin Y, Mok SC, Crum CP, Welch WR, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is overexpressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Research. 2005; 65: 2162–2169.

[10] Olsen M, Lof P, Stiekema A, van den Broek D, Wilthagen EA, Bossuyt PM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of human epididymis protein 4 (he4) for discriminating between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2021; 100: 1788–1799.

[11] Teh BH, Yong SL, Sim WW, Lau KB, Suharjono HN. Evaluation in the predictive value of serum human epididymal protein 4 (HE4), cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) and a combination of both in detecting ovarian malignancy. Hormone Molecular Biology and Clinical Investigation. 2018; 35: 20180029.

[12] Dewan R, Dewan A, Jindal M, Bhardawaj M. Diagnostic performance of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) for prediction of malignancy in ovarian masses. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2019; 20: 1103–1108.

[13] Rius M, Fusté P, Ros C, Martínez-Zamora Á, deGuirior C, Gracia M, et al. HE4 might be a more useful tumor biomarker to detect malignancy in patients with ovarian endometrioma when malignancy is suspected. Journal of International Medical Research. 2021; 49: 3000605211047701.

[14] Stiekema A, Boldingh QJ, Korse CM, van der Noort V, Boot H, van Driel WJ, et al. Serum human epididymal protein 4 (HE4) as biomarker for the differentiation between epithelial ovarian cancer and ovarian metastases of gastrointestinal origin. Gynecologic Oncology. 2015; 136: 562–566.

[15] Zhu YF, He LS, Zhang ZD, Huang QS. Expression of serum human epididymal secretory protein E4 at low grade and high grade serous carcinomas. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine. 2012; 5: 925–930.

[16] Gomes TA, Campos EA, Yoshida A, Sarian LO, Andrade LALA, Derchain SF. Preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant non-epithelial ovarian tumors: clinical features and tumor markers. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia. 2020; 42: 555–561.

[17] Qu W, Li J, Duan P, Tang Z, Guo F, Chen H, et al. Physiopathological factors affecting the diagnostic value of serum HE4-test for gynecologic malignancies. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics. 2016; 16: 1271–1282.

[18] Lycke M, Ulfenborg B, Malchau Lauesgaard J, Kristjansdottir B, Sundfeldt K. Consideration should be given to smoking, endometriosis, renal function (eGFR) and age when interpreting CA125 and HE4 in ovarian tumor diagnostics. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2021; 59: 1954–1962.

[19] Vienberg S, Geiger J, Madsen S, Dalgaard LT. MicroRNAs in metabolism. Acta Physiologica. 2017; 219: 346–361.

[20] Zhang L, Hu C, Huang Z, Li Z, Zhang Q, He Y. In Silico screening of circulating tumor DNA, circulating microRNAs, and long non-coding RNAs as diagnostic molecular biomarkers in ovarian cancer: a comprehensive meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16: e0250717.

[21] Liu L, Li P, Wang Q, Dong C, Guo M, Wang R. Diagnosis accuracy of the miR-200 family tumor marker series in ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Translational Cancer Research. 2022; 11: 2283–2290.

[22] Zhang B, Li Y, Li Y, Zhao H, An R. High expression of MicroRNA-200a/b indicates potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer. Disease Markers. 2022; 2022: 2751696.

[23] Kumar V, Gupta S, Chaurasia A, Sachan M. Evaluation of diagnostic potential of epigenetically deregulated MiRNAs in epithelial ovarian cancer. Frontiers in Oncology. 2021; 11: 681872.

[24] Kumar V, Gupta S, Varma K, Chaurasia A, Sachan M. Diagnostic performance of microRNA-34a, let-7f and microRNA-31 in epithelial ovarian cancer prediction. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2022; 33: e49.

[25] Berner K, Hirschfeld M, Weiß D, Rücker G, Asberger J, Ritter A, et al. Evaluation of circulating microRNAs as non-invasive biomarkers in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a case-control study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2022; 306: 151–163.

[26] Ralser DJ, Condic M, Egger E, Koensgen D, Mustea A, Stope MB. Evaluation of the diagnostic potential of circulating MicroRNAs miR-1 and miR-21 in patients with ovarian cancer. Anticancer Research. 2022; 42: 5839–5845.

[27] Habel A, Nassar F, Itani M, Bouaziz H, Hadj-Ahmed M, Msheik Z, et al. Mir-21 and Mir-125b as theranostic biomarkers for epithelial ovarian cancer in Tunisian women. African Health Sciences. 2023; 23: 256–264.

[28] Paliwal N, Vashist M, Chauhan M. Evaluation of miR-22 and miR-21 as diagnostic biomarkers in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. 3 Biotech. 2020; 10: 142.

[29] Zuberi M, Khan I, Mir R, Gandhi G, Ray PC, Saxena A. Utility of serum miR-125b as a diagnostic and prognostic indicator and its alliance with a panel of tumor suppressor genes in epithelial ovarian cancer. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11: e0153902.

[30] Li L, Zhang F, Zhang J, Shi X, Wu H, Chao X, et al. Identifying serum small extracellular vesicle MicroRNA as a noninvasive diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for ovarian cancer. ACS Nano. 2023; 17: 19197–19210.

[31] Kandimalla R, Wang W, Yu F, Zhou N, Gao F, Spillman M, et al. OCaMIR-A noninvasive, diagnostic signature for early-stage ovarian cancer: a multi-cohort retrospective and prospective study. Clinical Cancer Research. 2021; 27: 4277–4286.

[32] Yang X, Zhou S, Li C, Huang L, Chen C, Tang X, et al. Downregulation of LEMD1-AS1 and its influences on the diagnosis, prognosis, and immune infiltrates of epithelial ovarian cancer. Disease Markers. 2022; 2022: 6408879.

[33] Luo J, Zhang Y, Zheng T, Jing Y, Cao R, Wu M, et al. Application of long non-coding RNA RBAT1 in improving diagnosis and prognosis of ovarian carcinoma. Anti-Cancer Drugs. 2023; 34: 9–14.

[34] Luo T, Jiang Y, Yang J. Long Noncoding RNA LINC01554 as a novel biomarker for diagnosis and prognosis prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer. Disease Markers. 2021; 2021: 1244612.

[35] Shen W, Xie X, Liu M, Wang L. Diagnostic value of lncRNA ROR in differentiating ovarian cancer patients. Clinical Laboratory. 2020; 66.

[36] Barwal TS, Sharma U, Rana MK, Bazala S, Singh I, Murmu M, et al. A diagnostic and prognostic value of blood-based circulating long non-coding RNAs in thyroid, pancreatic and ovarian cancer. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2022; 171: 103598.

[37] Li T, Li J, Wang H, Zhao J, Yan M, He H, et al. Exosomes: potential biomarkers and functions in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences. 2022; 9: 1056179.

[38] Liu F, Wu X, Zhu H, Wang F. Dysregulated expression of circular RNAs serve as diagnostic and prognostic markers in ovarian and cervical cancer: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2021; 100: e27352.

[39] Ge L, Sun Y, Shi Y, Liu G, Teng F, Geng Z, et al. Plasma circRNA microarray profiling identifies novel circRNA biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Journal of Ovarian Research. 2022; 15: 58.

[40] Zhang Z, Zhu H, Hu J. CircRAB11FIP1 promoted autophagy flux of ovarian cancer through DSC1 and miR-129. Cell Death & Disease. 2021; 12: 219.

[41] Ning L, Lang J, Wu L. Plasma circN4BP2L2 is a promising novel diagnostic biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2022; 22: 6.

[42] Beilerli A, Begliarzade S, Sufianov A, Ilyasova T, Liang Y, Beylerli O. Circulating ciRS-7 as a potential non-invasive biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer: An investigative study. Non-Coding RNA Research. 2022; 7: 197–204.

[43] Wang X, Yao Y, Jin M. Circ-0001068 is a novel biomarker for ovarian cancer and inducer of PD1 expression in T cells. Aging. 2020; 12: 19095–19106.

[44] Wang L, Chen J, Lu C. Circular RNA Foxo3 enhances progression of ovarian carcinoma cells. Aging. 2021; 13: 22432–22443.

[45] Wang F, Niu Y, Chen K, Yuan X, Qin Y, Zheng F, et al. Extracellular vesicle-packaged circATP2B4 mediates M2 macrophage polarization via miR-532-3p/SREBF1 axis to promote epithelial ovarian cancer metastasis. Cancer Immunology Research. 2023; 11: 199–216.

[46] Constâncio V, Nunes SP, Henrique R, Jerónimo C. DNA methylation-based testing in liquid biopsies as detection and prognostic biomarkers for the four major cancer types. Cells. 2020; 9: 624.

[47] Herzog C, Jones A, Evans I, Reisel D, Olaitan A, Doufekas K, et al. Plasma cell-free DNA methylation analysis for ovarian cancer detection: Analysis of samples from a case-control study and an ovarian cancer screening trial. International Journal of Cancer. 2024; 154: 679–691.

[48] Su HY, Lai HC, Lin YW, Chou YC, Liu CY, Yu MH. An epigenetic marker panel for screening and prognostic prediction of ovarian cancer. International Journal of Cancer. 2009; 124: 387–393.

[49] Baranova I, Kovarikova H, Laco J, Sedlakova I, Vrbacky F, Kovarik D, et al. Identification of a four-gene methylation biomarker panel in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2020; 58: 1332–1340.

[50] Faaborg L, Jakobsen A, Waldstrøm M, Petersen CB, Andersen RF, Steffensen KD. HOXA9-methylated DNA as a diagnostic biomarker of ovarian malignancy. Biomarkers in Medicine. 2021; 15: 1309–1317.

[51] Wang L, Ni S, Du Z, Li X. A six-CpG-based methylation markers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in blood. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. 2020; 121: 1409–1419.

[52] Liang L, Zhang Y, Li C, Liao Y, Wang G, Xu J, et al. Plasma cfDNA methylation markers for the detection and prognosis of ovarian cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022; 83: 104222.

[53] Zhang Q, Hu G, Yang Q, Dong R, Xie X, Ma D, et al. A multiplex methylation-specific PCR assay for the detection of early-stage ovarian cancer using cell-free serum DNA. Gynecologic Oncology. 2013; 130: 132–139.

[54] Chang CC, Wang HC, Liao YP, Chen YC, Weng YC, Yu MH, et al. The feasibility of detecting endometrial and ovarian cancer using DNA methylation biomarkers in cervical scrapings. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2018; 29: e17.

[55] Wu TI, Huang RL, Su PH, Mao SP, Wu CH, Lai HC. Ovarian cancer detection by DNA methylation in cervical scrapings. Clinical Epigenetics. 2019; 11: 166.

[56] Lu H, Liu Y, Wang J, Fu S, Wang L, Huang C, et al. Detection of ovarian cancer using plasma cell-free DNA methylomes. Clinical Epigenetics. 2022; 14: 74.

[57] Sant M, Bernat-Peguera A, Felip E, Margelí M. Role of ctDNA in breast cancer. Cancers. 2022; 14: 310.

[58] Markus H, Chandrananda D, Moore E, Mouliere F, Morris J, Brenton JD, et al. Refined characterization of circulating tumor DNA through biological feature integration. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12: 1928.

[59] Bettegowda C, Sausen M, Leary RJ, Kinde I, Wang Y, Agrawal N, et al. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies. Science Translational Medicine. 2014; 6: 224ra224.

[60] Phallen J, Sausen M, Adleff V, Leal A, Hruban C, White J, et al. Direct detection of early-stage cancers using circulating tumor DNA. Science Translational Medicine. 2017; 9: eaan2415.

[61] Haemmerle M, Stone RL, Menter DG, Afshar-Kharghan V, Sood AK. The platelet lifeline to cancer: challenges and opportunities. Cancer cell. 2018; 33: 965–983.

[62] Chen M, Hou L, Hu L, Tan C, Wang X, Bao P, et al. Platelet detection as a new liquid biopsy tool for human cancers. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022; 12: 983724.

[63] Lomnytska M, Pinto R, Becker S, Engström U, Gustafsson S, Björklund C, et al. Platelet protein biomarker panel for ovarian cancer diagnosis. Biomarker Research. 2018; 6: 2.

[64] Roweth HG, Battinelli EM. Lessons to learn from tumor-educated platelets. Blood. 2021; 137: 3174–3180.

[65] Ge X, Yuan L, Cheng B, Dai K. Identification of seven tumor-educated platelets RNAs for cancer diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. 2021; 35: e23791.

[66] Gao Y, Liu CJ, Li HY, Xiong XM, Li GL, In’t Veld SGJG, et al. Platelet RNA enables accurate detection of ovarian cancer: an intercontinental, biomarker identification study. Protein & Cell. 2023; 14: 579–590.

[67] Tan HT, Low J, Lim SG, Chung MC. Serum autoantibodies as biomarkers for early cancer detection. The FEBS Journal. 2009; 276: 6880–6904.

[68] Ahmed AA, Etemadmoghadam D, Temple J, Lynch AG, Riad M, Sharma R, et al. Driver mutations in TP53 are ubiquitous in high grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. Journal of Pathology. 2010; 221: 49–56.

[69] Anderson KS, Wong J, Vitonis A, Crum CP, Sluss PM, Labaer J, et al. p53 autoantibodies as potential detection and prognostic biomarkers in serous ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2010; 19: 859–868.

[70] Yang WL, Gentry-Maharaj A, Simmons A, Ryan A, Fourkala EO, Lu Z, et al.; AOCS Study Group. Elevation of TP53 autoantibody before CA125 in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Clinical Cancer Research. 2017; 23: 5912–5922.

[71] Katchman BA, Chowell D, Wallstrom G, Vitonis AF, LaBaer J, Cramer DW, et al. Autoantibody biomarkers for the detection of serous ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2017; 146: 129–136.

[72] Ma Y, Wang X, Qiu C, Qin J, Wang K, Sun G, et al. Using protein microarray to identify and evaluate autoantibodies to tumor-associated antigens in ovarian cancer. Cancer Science. 2021; 112: 537–549.

[73] Qiu C, Duan Y, Wang B, Shi J, Wang P, Ye H, et al. Serum anti-PDLIM1 autoantibody as diagnostic marker in ovarian cancer. Frontiers in Immunology. 2021; 12: 698312.

[74] Pilyugin M, Ratajska M, Stukan M, Concin N, Zeillinger R, Irminger-Finger I. BARD1 autoantibody blood test for early detection of ovarian cancer. Genes. 2021; 12: 969.

[75] Duan Y, Cui C, Qiu C, Sun G, Wang X, Wang P, et al. Serum autoantibodies against LRDD, STC1, and FOXA1 as biomarkers in the detection of ovarian cancer. Disease Markers. 2022; 2022: 6657820.

[76] Mao L, Tang Y, Deng MJ, Huang CT, Lan D, Nong WZ, et al. A combined biomarker panel shows improved sensitivity and specificity for detection of ovarian cancer. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. 2022; 36: e24232.

[77] Wang YD, Chen H, Liu HQ, Hao M. Correlation between ovarian neoplasm and serum levels of osteopontin: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biology. 2014; 35: 11799–11808.

[78] Horała A, Swiatly A, Lorek J, Kokot ZJ, Matysiak J, Nowak-Markwitz E. Assessment of diagnostic utility of multivariate diagnostic models in differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Ginekologia Polska. 2018; 89: 568–572.

[79] Lan Z, Fu D, Yu X, Xi M. Diagnostic values of osteopontin combined with CA125 for ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Familial Cancer. 2016; 15: 221–230.

[80] Rosen DG, Wang L, Atkinson JN, Yu Y, Lu KH, Diamandis EP, et al. Potential markers that complement expression of CA125 in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2005; 99: 267–277.

[81] Zhu C, Zhang N, Zhong A, Xiao K, Lu R, Guo L. A combined strategy of TK1, HE4 and CA125 shows better diagnostic performance than risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in ovarian carcinoma. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2022; 524: 43–50.

[82] Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Kawaguchi R, Ootake N, Myoba S, Kimura F. Tissue factor pathway inhibitor 2: a potential diagnostic marker for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian tumors. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2022; 48: 2442–2451.

[83] Hasenburg A, Eichkorn D, Vosshagen F, Obermayr E, Geroldinger A, Zeillinger R, et al. Biomarker-based early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer based on a five-protein signature in patient’s plasma—a prospective trial. BMC Cancer. 2021; 21: 1037.

[84] Yue X, Yue Z, Wang Y, Dong Z, Yang H, Yue S. Value of the Copenhagen index in the diagnosis of malignant adnexal tumors: a meta-analysis. International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2023; 160: 506–515.

[85] Suri A, Perumal V, Ammalli P, Suryan V, Bansal SK. Diagnostic measures comparison for ovarian malignancy risk in Epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2021; 11: 17308.

[86] Karlsen MA, Sandhu N, Høgdall C, Christensen IJ, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, 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. 2012; 127: 379–383.

[87] Ikeda Y, Hasegawa K, Kurosaki A, Miyara A, Hanaoka T, Shintani D, et al. The risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) as a predictive marker of peritoneal dissemination in epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Oncology Research and Treatment. 2015; 38: 276–281.

[88] Nikolova T, Zivadinovic R, Evtimovska N, Klisarovska V, Stanojevic M, Georgievska J, et al. Diagnostic performance of human epididymis protein 4 compared to a combination of biophysical and biochemical markers to differentiate ovarian endometriosis from epithelial ovarian cancer in premenopausal women. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2017; 43: 1870–1879.

[89] Carreras-Dieguez N, Glickman A, Munmany M, Casanovas G, Agustí N, Díaz-Feijoo B, et al. Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for preoperative assessment of adnexal tumors. Diagnostics. 2022; 12: 226.

[90] Grenache DG, Heichman KA, Werner TL, Vucetic Z. Clinical performance of two multi-marker blood tests for predicting malignancy in women with an adnexal mass. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2015; 438: 358–363.

[91] Kaijser J, Van Gorp T, Smet ME, Van Holsbeke C, Sayasneh A, Epstein E, et al. Are serum HE4 or ROMA scores useful to experienced examiners for improving characterization of adnexal masses after transvaginal ultrasonography? Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014; 43: 89–97.

[92] Park H, Lee DW, Kim MJ, Shin JE, Lee HN. Low serum T3 levels are associated with false-positive results when using the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in women with benign ovarian disease. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2021; 60: 36–40.

[93] Jeong S, Son DS, Cho M, Lee N, Song W, Shin S, et al. Evaluation of combined cancer markers with lactate dehydrogenase and application of machine learning algorithms for differentiating benign disease from malignant ovarian cancer. Cancer control. 2021; 28: 10732748211033401.

[94] Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1990; 97: 922–929.

[95] Priyanka MB, Panda J, Samantroy S, Panda SR, Jena P. Comparison of four risk of malignancy indices for preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses: a prospective observational study. Cureus. 2023; 15: e41539.

[96] Ali MN, Habib D, Hassanien AI, Abbas AM. Comparison of the four malignancy risk indices in the discrimination of malignant ovarian masses: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2021; 50: 101986.

[97] Al-Musalhi K, Al-Kindi M, Ramadhan F, Al-Rawahi T, Al-Hatali K, Mula-Abed WA. Validity of cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Oman Medical Journal. 2015; 30: 428–434.

[98] Chacón E, Dasí J, Caballero C, Alcázar JL. Risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm versus risk malignancy index-i for preoperative assessment of adnexal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2019; 84: 591–598.

[99] Davenport C, Rai N, Sharma P, Deeks JJ, Berhane S, Mallett S, et al. Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2022; 7: CD011964.

[100] Davenport CF, Rai N, Sharma P, Deeks J, Berhane S, Mallett S, et al. Diagnostic models combining clinical information, ultrasound and biochemical markers for ovarian cancer: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers. 2022; 14: 3621.

[101] Antovska SV, Bashevska N, Aleksioska N. Predictive values of the ultrasound parameters, CA-125 and risk of malignancy index in patients with ovarian cancer. Klinicka Onkologie. 2011; 24: 435–442.

[102] Lof P, van de Vrie R, Korse CM, van Gent MDJM, Mom CH, Rosier-van Dunné FMF, et al. Can serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) support the decision to refer a patient with an ovarian mass to an oncology hospital? Gynecologic Oncology. 2022; 166: 284–291.

[103] Woolas R, Young L, Brinkmann D, Gardner F, Hadwin R, Woolas T, et al. Exploration of preliminary objective triage by menopause score and CA 125 result prior to accelerating fast-track booking for suspected ovarian cancer—a role for the pathway navigator? Diagnostics. 2024; 14: 541.

[104] Manegold-Brauer G, Buechel J, Knipprath-Mészaros A, Schoetzau A, Hacker NF, Tercanli S, et al. Improved detection rate of ovarian cancer using a 2-step triage model of the risk of malignancy index and expert sonography in an outpatient screening setting. International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2016; 26: 1062–1069.

[105] Reilly GP, Gregory DA, Scotti DJ, Lederman S, Neiman WA, Sussman S, et al. A real-world comparison of the clinical and economic utility of OVA1 and CA125 in assessing ovarian tumor malignancy risk. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2023; 12: e230025.

[106] Dunton CJ, Eskander RN, Bullock RG, Pappas T. Low-risk multivariate index assay scores, physician referral and surgical choices in women with adnexal masses. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2020; 36: 2079–2083.

[107] Eskander RN, Carpenter BA, Wu HG, Wolf JK. The clinical utility of an elevated-risk multivariate index assay score in ovarian cancer patients. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2016; 32: 1161–1165.

[108] Dunton CJ, Hutchcraft ML, Bullock RG, Northrop LE, Ueland FR. Salvaging detection of early-stage ovarian malignancies when CA125 is not informative. Diagnostics. 2021; 11: 1440.

[109] Fritsche HA, Bullock RG. A reflex testing protocol using two multivariate index assays improves the risk assessment for ovarian cancer in patients with an adnexal mass. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2023; 162: 485–492.

[110] Velayo CL, Reforma KN, Sicam RVG, Diwa MH, Sy ADR, Tantengco OAG. Clinical performance of a multivariate index assay in detecting early-stage ovarian cancer in filipino women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19: 9896.

[111] Coleman RL, Herzog TJ, Chan DW, Munroe DG, Pappas TC, Smith A, et al. Validation of a second-generation multivariate index assay for malignancy risk of adnexal masses. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 215: 82.e81–82.e11.

[112] Velayo CL, Reforma KN, Sicam RVG, Diwa MH, Sy ADR, Tantengco OAG. Improving diagnostic strategies for ovarian cancer in Filipino women using ultrasound imaging and a multivariate index assay. Cancer Epidemiology. 2022; 81: 102253.

[113] Høgdall E. Approaches to the detection of ovarian cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation. Supplementum. 2016; 245: S49–S53.

[114] Luo HJ, Hu ZD, Cui M, Zhang XF, Tian WY, Ma CQ, et al. Diagnostic performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in identifying primary ovarian cancer. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2023; 49: 998–1006.

[115] Wang Z, Tao X, Ying C. CPH-I and HE4 are more favorable than CA125 in differentiating borderline ovarian tumors from epithelial ovarian cancer at early stages. Disease Markers. 2019; 2019: 6241743.

[116] Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2008; 31: 681–690.

[117] Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, Sayasneh A, Van Holsbeke C, Vergote I, et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013; 41: 9–20.

[118] Vilendecic Z, Radojevic M, Stefanovic K, Dotlic J, Likic Ladjevic I, Dugalic S, et al. Accuracy of IOTA simple rules, IOTA ADNEX model, RMI, and subjective assessment for preoperative adnexal mass evaluation: the experience of a tertiary care referral hospital. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2023; 88: 116–122.

[119] Guerriero S, Saba L, Ajossa S, Peddes C, Sedda F, Piras A, et al. Assessing the reproducibility of the IOTA simple ultrasound rules for classifying adnexal masses as benign or malignant using stored 3D volumes. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2013; 171: 157–160.

[120] Yue X, Zhong L, Wang Y, Zhang C, Chen X, Wang S, et al. Value of assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa in the differential diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumor and benign ovarian tumor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. 2022; 48: 730–742.

[121] He P, Wang JJ, Duan W, Song C, Yang Y, Wu QQ. Estimating the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses: validation of the ADNEX model in the hands of nonexpert ultrasonographers in a gynaecological oncology centre in China. Journal of Ovarian Research. 2021; 14: 169.

[122] Chen H, Qian L, Jiang M, Du Q, Yuan F, Feng W. Performance of IOTA ADNEX model in evaluating adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center in China. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019; 54: 815–822.

[123] Lam Huong L, Thi Phuong Dung N, Hoang Lam V, Tran Thao Nguyen N, Minh Tam L, Vu Quoc Huy N. The optimal cut-off point of the ADNEX model for the prediction of the ovarian cancer risk. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2022; 23: 2713–2718.