Advertisement

Central European Journal of Medicine

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 210–216 | Cite as

Diagnostic value of serum tumor markers evaluation for adnexal masses

  • Milan Terzic
  • Jelena Dotlic
  • Ivana Likic
  • Branka Nikolic
  • Natasa Brndusic
  • Igor Pilic
  • Jovan Bila
  • Sanja Maricic
  • Nebojsa Arsenovic
Research Article
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

The study aim was to investigate the diagnostic value of preoperative serum tumor markers in patients with adnexal masses.

Methods

Study included all (358) consecutive patients treated for adnexal tumors at the Clinic of Ob/Gyn, Clinical Center of Serbia in 12 months. Tumor marker levels (Ca 125, CEA, HE 4, Ca 19.9, and Ca 15.3), taken from all women on admission, were compared with postoperative histopathological findings of extracted tumors. Results. Women with malignant tumors had the highest levels of Ca 125, CEA, and HE 4 (p<0.01). Mucinous adenocarcinoma produced the highest amounts of Ca 19.9 and CEA. Ca 15.3 was the highest in women with endometrioid carcinoma. There were no significant differences in the levels of all examined tumor markers (p>0.05) between women with benign and borderline tumors. Ca 125, HE 4, and Ca 15.3 can discriminate the malignant from other tumor types well. The highest sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (91.04%, 87.6%, 67.9%, 77.2%, respectively) were achieved for the combination of Ca 125 and HE 4.

Conclusions

Blood levels of examined tumor markers can be good predictors of the adnexal masses nature. For the most precise evaluation the combination of serum tumor markers should be used.

Keywords

Tumor markers Preoperative evaluation Adnexal masses 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Rivas-Corchado LM, González-Geroniz M, Hernández-Herrera RJ. Epidemiological profile of ovarian cancer. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2011; 79:558–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Sehouli J, Henrich W, Braicu I, Lichtenegger W. Preoperative diagnostics in ovarian cancer. What do we really need? Gynäkologe 2006; 39:428–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Ameye L, Valentin L, Testa A.C, Van Holsbeke C, Domali E, Van Huffel S, et all. A scoring system to differentiate malignant from benign masses in specific ultrasound-based subgroups of adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33:92–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion No. 477. The role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117:742–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, et all. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 2009; 10:327–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Joyner AB, Runowicz CD. Ovarian cancer screening and early detection. Womens Health 2009; 5:693–699Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Donach M, Yu Y, Artioli G, Banna G, Feng W, Bast RC Jr, et all. Combined use of biomarkers for detection of ovarian cancer in high-risk women. Tumour Biol 2010; 31:209–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chan JK, Tian C, Monk BJ, Herzog T, Kapp DS, Bell J, et all. Prognostic factors for high-risk early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 2008; 112:2202–2210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Terzic M, Dotlic J, Likic I, Ladjevic N, Brndusic N, Arsenovic N, Maricic S, Mihailovic T, Andrijasevic S. Current diagnostic approach to patients with adnexal masses: Which tools are relevant in routine praxis ? Chin J Cancer Res 2012 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2013.01.01Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Edgell T, Martin-Roussety G, Barker G, Autelitano DJ, Allen D, Grant P, et al. Phase II biomarker trial of a multimarker diagnostic for ovarian cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2010; 136:1079–1088PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Visintin I, Feng Z, Longton G, Ward DC, Alvero AB, Lai Y, et all. Diagnostic markers for early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:1065–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF. Triage of ovarian masses. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 48: 322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Rong-Huan H, Wei-Miao Y, Li-Yan W, Yu-Yan M. Highly elevated serum CA-125 levels in patients with non-malignant gynecological diseases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 283:S107–S110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Vorgias G, Iavazzo C, Savvopoulos P, Myriokefalitaki E, Katsoulis M, Kalinoglou N, et all. Can the preoperative Ca-125 level predict optimal cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma? A single institution cohort study. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112:11–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Terzic M, Dotlic J, Likic Ladjevic I, Atanackovic J, Ladjevic N. Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses. Vojnosanit Pregl 2011; 68:589–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dotlic J, Terzic M, Likic I, Atanackovic J, Ladjevic N. Evaluation of adnexal masses: correlation of clinical stage, ultrasound and hystopathological findings. Vojnosanit Pregl 2011; 68: 861–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Van Calster B, Valentin L, Van Holsbeke C, Zhang J, Jurkovic D, Lissoni AA, et all. A novel approach to predict the likelihood of specific ovarian tumor pathology based on serum CA-125: a multicenter observational study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 20:2420–2422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Langmar Z, Nemeth M, Vlesko G, Kiraly M, Hornyak L, Bosze P. HE4-a novel promising serum marker in the diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2011; 32:605–610PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Granato T, Midulla C, Longo F, Colaprisca B, Frati L, Anastasi E. Role of HE4, CA72.4, and CA125 in monitoring ovarian cancer. Tumour Biol. 2012 DOI: 10.1007/s13277-012-0381-8Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Anastasi E, Marchei GG, Viggiani V, Gennarini G, Frati L, Reale MG. HE4: a new potential early biomarker for the recurrence of ovarian cancer. Tumour Biol 2010; 31:113–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Zheng H, Gao Y. Serum HE4 as a Useful Biomarker in Discriminating Ovarian Cancer From Benign Pelvic Disease. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318249bee7Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    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; 86:484–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Ugur MG, Ozturk E, Balat O, Dikensoy E, Teke S, Aydin A. Do high levels of CA 19-9 in women with mature cystic teratomas of the ovary warrant further evaluation? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2012; 33:207–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    van Haaften-Day C, Shen Y, Xu F, Yu Y, Berchuck A, Havrilesky LJ, et al. OVX1, macrophage-colony stimulating factor, and CA-125-II as tumor markers for epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a critical appraisal. Cancer 2001; 92:2837–2844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Mabrouk M, Elmakky A, Caramelli E, Farina A, Mignemi G, Venturoli S, et al. Performance of peripheral (serum and molecular) blood markers for diagnosis of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-011-2122-2124Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Sørensen SS, Mosgaard BJ. Combination of cancer antigen 125 and carcinoembryonic antigen can improve ovarian cancer diagnosis. Dan Med Bull. 2011; 58:A4331PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milan Terzic
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jelena Dotlic
    • 1
  • Ivana Likic
    • 1
    • 2
  • Branka Nikolic
    • 2
    • 3
  • Natasa Brndusic
    • 1
  • Igor Pilic
    • 1
  • Jovan Bila
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sanja Maricic
    • 4
  • Nebojsa Arsenovic
    • 5
  1. 1.Clinic of Obstetrics and GynecologyClinical Center of SerbiaBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.School of MedicineUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology „Narodni Front“BelgradeSerbia
  4. 4.Occupational Health DepartmentGeneral Health Center “Savski Venac”BelgradeSerbia
  5. 5.Department of Cellular Pathology, PathLinks Pathology ServicesLincoln County HospitalLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations