The Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Enolase/Cr, CA125, and CA19-9 in the Detection of Endometriosis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rokhgireh S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7545435 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The present study investigated the value of combinations of five specific tumor biomarkers for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC): Neuron-specific enolase (NSE), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA)19-9, CA125 and CA242. Associations between these markers and clinicopathological characteristics (including the Tumor-Node-Metastasis stage) were also assessed. Serum levels of the 5 markers were compared between 358 patients with CRC and 298 healthy individuals (CRC and control group, respectively). The NSE concentration of the CRC group was significantly higher compared with the control. Furthermore, patients at clinical stage III+IV exhibited significantly higher NSE levels compared with those at stage I+II. The serum NSE level of N+ patients was significantly higher compared with the N- group, and the NSE level of M1 patients was significantly compared with the M0 group. NSE level was also significantly associated with tumor stage, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis and hematochezia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for NSE in CRC was 0.766, which was significantly higher than that of the other four markers, which ranged from 0.560-0.682. The AUC of NSE, CEA, CA19-9, CA125, CA242 combined was significantly higher compared with any of the markers individually (range, 0.796-0.858). Therefore, serum NSE may be a good clinical tool for the auxiliary diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Besides, the combination of NSE, CEA, CA19-9, CA125 and CA242 was significantly more sensitive compared with NSE alone. Thus, the combined detection of the 5 tumor markers may be more useful for the diagnosis of CRC.
| S-EPMC7286116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThe CA19-9 antigen is the current best biomarker for pancreatic cancer, but it is not elevated in about 25% of pancreatic cancer patients at a cutoff that gives a 25% false-positive rate. We hypothesized that antigens related to the CA19-9 antigen, which is a glycan called sialyl-Lewis A (sLeA), are elevated in distinct subsets of pancreatic cancers.MethodsWe profiled the levels of multiple glycans and mucin glycoforms in plasma from 200 subjects with either pancreatic cancer or benign pancreatic disease, and we validated selected findings in additional cohorts of 116 and 100 subjects, the latter run blinded and including cancers that exclusively were early-stage.ResultsWe found significant elevations in two glycans: an isomer of sLeA called sialyl-Lewis X, present both in sulfated and non-sulfated forms; and the sialylated form of a marker for pluripotent stem cells, type 1 N-acetyl-lactosamine. The glycans performed as well as sLeA as individual markers and were elevated in distinct groups of patients, resulting in a 3-marker panel that significantly improved upon any individual biomarker. The panel gave 85% sensitivity and 90% specificity in the combined discovery and validation cohorts, relative to 54% sensitivity and 86% specificity for sLeA; and it gave 80% sensitivity and 84% specificity in the independent test cohort, as opposed to 66% sensitivity and 72% specificity for sLeA.ConclusionsGlycans related to sLeA are elevated in distinct subsets of pancreatic cancers and yield improved diagnostic accuracy over CA19-9.
| S-EPMC4792034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Surgical resection is the only curative treatment for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, 80%-85% of patients present with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable pancreatic cancer at the time of diagnosis. Detection of pancreatic cancer at early stages remains a great challenge due to lack of accurate detection tests. Recommendations in existing clinical practice guidelines on early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer are inconsistent and based on limited evidence. Most of them endorse measuring serum CA19-9 as a complementary test, but also state that it is not recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. There are currently no other tumour-specific markers recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy of five common tumour biomarkers (CA242,carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA)), CA125, microRNAs and K-ras gene mutation) and CA19-9 and their combinations for diagnosing pancreatic cancer using network meta-analysis method, and to rank these tests using a superiority index. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2017. The search will include the above-mentioned tumour biomarkers for diagnosing pancreatic cancer, including CA19-9. The risk of bias for each study will be independently assessed as low, moderate or high using criteria adapted from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Network meta-analysis will be performed using STATA V.12.0 and R software V.3.4.1. The competing diagnostic tests will be ranked by a superiority index. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval and patient consent are not required since this study is a network meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this network meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017064627.
| S-EPMC5770961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSerum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, & CA125 have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers, however there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.ObjectiveAssessing the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes, pathologic, and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.DesignThis is a retrospective study with results reported in 2023. The median follow-up time was 43 months.SettingSingle tertiary care comprehensive cancer center.ParticipantsUnder an approved Institutional Review Board protocol, the Palantir Foundry software system was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least one tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between 2016 and 2023.ResultsA total of 1,338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median age of 56.5 years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (80.7%). CEA was elevated in more than half of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 34% and 27%, respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal for CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 respectively (all p<0.0001). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Patients with highly elevated (top 10 th percentile) CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 had markedly worse survival with 5-year survival rates of 59%, 64%, and 57%, respectively (HR vs. normal : 9.8, 6.0, 7.6, all p<0.0001). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease elevated CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR vs. normal : 3.4, 1.8, 3.9, p<0.0001 for CEA and CA125, p=0.0019 for CA19-9). Interestingly tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high relative to low-grade tumors (18.3 vs. 15.0, p=0.0009). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Mutation in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the utility of measuring CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in the management of appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.Key pointsQuestion: Can serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 be useful in management of patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma?Findings: In this single institution retrospective cohort study, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with significantly worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal respectively. Moreover, quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Further analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated.Meaning: Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.
| S-EPMC10516068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo clarify clinical importance of serum CA19-9, CA-125, and plasma D-dimer (D-D) levels in detecting spontaneously ruptured ovarian endometriosis (OE).Materials and methodsWe retrospectively examined 173 patients with endometriosis out of 735 cases of OE between 2013 and 2019. Among these, 21 cases were diagnosed as "spontaneously ruptured" after surgery, while the remaining cases were unruptured. Venous blood was collected pre-operatively to detect CA19-9, CA-125, and D-D levels. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was applied to test clinical value of each marker.ResultsAmong the 21 patients with ruptured OE, 16 had a history of pelvic cysts, 19 claimed sudden onsets of lower abdominal pain, and fluid accumulation were detected in cul-de-sac in only six participants by ultrasound. For serological investigation, both CA19-9 and D-D were significantly elevated in the ruptured OE group (343.09 ± 367.67 U/ml vs. 36.84 ± 40.01 U/ml, 3.39 ± 4.90 mg/L vs. 0.43 ± 0.29 mg/L, both p < .0001). The area under curve (AUC) value for the combination of CA19-9 and D-D was 0.975 (95% CI, 0.939 - 0.993), with specificity of 96.69%, and sensitivity of 85.71%. The combination of CA-125, CA19-9 and D-D showed the highest AUC value that up to 0.976 (95% CI, 0.940-0.993), with sensitivity of 95.24%, and specificity of 87.50%.ConclusionThe combination of CA19-9 and D-D can be chosen as an effective and economical indicators to identify patients with spontaneously ruptured OE in pre-operation assessment. However, from the perspective of differential diagnosis, the combination of CA-125, CA19-9 and D-D is the best choice. Key messagesTaking into account the economic effect, the combination of CA19-9 and D-D can be chosen as an effective indicators to identify patients with spontaneously ruptured OE in pre-operation assessment.From the perspective of differential diagnosis, the combination of CA-125, CA19-9 and D-D is the best choice to identify patients with spontaneously ruptured OE.
| S-EPMC9246179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Endometriosis (EM) is a common gynecological condition in women of reproductive age, with diverse causes and a not yet fully understood pathogenesis. Traditional diagnostics rely on single diagnostic biomarkers and does not integrate a variety of different biomarkers. This study introduces multiple machine learning techniques, enhancing the accuracy of predictive models. A novel diagnostic approach that combines various biomarkers provides a new clinical perspective for improving the diagnostic efficiency of endometriosis, holding significant potential for clinical application. Methods: In this study, GSE51981 was used as a test set, and 11 machine learning algorithms (Lasso, Stepglm, glmBoost, Support Vector Machine, Ridge, Enet, plsRglm, Random Forest, LDA, XGBoost, and NaiveBayes) were employed to construct 113 predictive models for endometriosis. The optimal model was determined based on the AUC values derived from various algorithms. These genes were then evaluated using nine machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, SVM, Gradient Boosting Machine, LASSO, XGB, NNET, Generalized Linear Model, KNN, and Decision Tree) to assess significance scores and identify diagnostic genes for each algorithm. The diagnostic value of these genes was further validated in external datasets from GSE7305, GSE11691, and GSE120103. Results: Analysis of the GSE51981 dataset revealed 62 DEGs. The Stepglm [Both] and plsRglm algorithms identified 30 genes with the most potential using the AUC evaluation. Subsequently, nine machine learning algorithms were applied to select diagnostic genes, leading to the identification of five key diagnostic genes using the LASSO algorithm. The ADAT1 gene exhibited the best single-gene predictive performance, with an AUC of 0.785. A combination of genes (FOS, EPHX1, DLGAP5, PCSK5, and ADAT1) achieves an AUC of 0.836 in the test dataset. Moreover, these genes consistently exhibited an AUC exceeding 0.78 in all validation datasets, demonstrating superior predictive performance. Furthermore, correlation analysis with immune infiltration strengthened their predictive value by demonstrating the close relationship of the diagnostic genes with immune infiltrating cells. Conclusion: A combination of biomarkers consisting of FOS, EPHX1, DLGAP5, PCSK5, and ADAT1 can serve as a diagnostic tool for endometriosis, enhancing diagnostic efficiency. The association of these genes with immune infiltrating cells reveals their potential role in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, providing new insights for early detection and treatment.
| S-EPMC10720908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Increasing evidence from recent studies has revealed the association of CA125 with the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, but inconsistent findings have been reported. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of a serum CA125-based diagnostic panel in predicting malignant pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science for relevant articles from inception to October 2016. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. The performance characteristics were pooled using random-effects models. The statistical analysis was performed using Meta-Disc 1.4 and Stata Version 12.0 software. Results: A total of 1235 participants pooled from 8 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of tumor predictors for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The pooling accuracy analysis of CA125 alone indicated that the pooled sensitivity was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.54-0.62) and the specificity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82), whereas the serum CA125-based diagnostic panel had a pooled sensitivity of 0.47 (95% CI 0.47-0.51) and a specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90). Furthermore, the AUC and Q-value of the CA125-based diagnostic panel were 0.89 and 0.82, respectively, which indicated that the CA125-based panel is superior to CA125 or CA19-9 alone in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. No obvious publication bias was found. Conclusions: In summary, a CA125-based diagnostic panel is better at diagnosing pancreatic cancer than a test using CA125 or CA19-9 alone. Further studies should be performed to confirm our conclusion.
| S-EPMC5687178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe primary aim was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DE) in a diseased population. The secondary aim was to offer first insights into the clinical applicability of the new International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group (IDEA) consensus for sonographic evaluation, which was also adapted for MRI and surgical reporting in this study.MethodsThe study was a prospective observational cohort study. In this study, consecutive women planned for surgical treatment for DE underwent preoperative mapping of pelvic disease using TVS and MRI (index tests). The results were compared against the intraoperative findings with histopathological confirmation (reference standard). In case of disagreement between intraoperative and pathology findings, the latter was prioritised. Index tests and surgical findings were reported using a standardised protocol based on the IDEA consensus.ResultsThe study ran from 07/2016 to 02/2018. One-hundred and eleven women were approached, but 60 declined participation. Out of the 51 initially recruited women, two were excluded due to the missing reference standard. Both methods (TVS and MRI) had the same sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DE in the upper rectum (UpR) and rectosigmoid (RS) (UpR TVS and MRI sensitivity and specificity 100%; RS TVS and MRI sensitivity 94%; TVS and MRI specificity 84%). In the assessment of DE in the bladder (Bl), uterosacral ligaments (USL), vagina (V), rectovaginal septum (RVS), and overall pelvis (P), TVS had marginally higher specificity but lower sensitivity than MRI (Bl TVS sensitivity 89%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 100%, specificity 95%; USL TVS sensitivity 74%, specificity 67%, MRI sensitivity 94%, specificity 60%; V TVS sensitivity 55%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 73%, specificity 95%; RVS TVS sensitivity 67%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 83%, specificity 93%; P TVS sensitivity 78%, specificity 97%, MRI sensitivity 91%, specificity 91%). No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TVS and MRI were observed except USL assessment (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (κ) = 0.727 [p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (κ) = 0.727 [p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p=0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (.ConclusionWe found that both imaging techniques had overall good agreement with the reference standard in the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. This is the first study to date involving the IDEA consensus for ultrasound, its modified version for MRI, and intraoperative reporting of deep pelvic endometriosis in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC7011347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) combing human epididymis secretary protein 4 (HE4) and CA125 showed better diagnostic accuracy for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) when compared with HE4 or CA125 alone; however, other studies showed no or worse diagnostic accuracy. We aim to conduct a prospective and multicenter clinical trial to compare the diagnostic accuracy of HE4, CA125, and ROMA for EOC.A prospective and multicenter (n = 9) trial including 2481 individuals was performed in Chinese women. HE4, CA125, and ROMA diagnostic accuracy were evaluated according to different menopausal status and stages of EOC. Their diagnostic values were evaluated by the area under curve (AUC) and compared by the Z scores. Diagnostic specificity of other kinds of participants (n = 1098) was also evaluated.For discriminating between healthy control (HC) and EOC, only CA125 showed significant difference for discriminating HC and EOC in all the individuals when compared with HE4 and ROMA (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively), at the cutoff value of 31.5, the sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) were 88.6% and 97.1%. For discriminating between benign pelvic mass (BPM) and EOC, ROMA showed significant difference for discriminating BPM and EOC in the all individuals (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively) and the postmenopausal individuals (P = 0.03 and P = 0.04, respectively), at the cutoff value of 27.3 and 34.5, the SNs were 97.0% and 89.4%, SPs were 81.4% and 82.5%, separately. Within all kinds of diseases, there was no significant difference in specificity between CA125 and HE4.In conclusions, when HE4, CA125, and ROMA were compared with each other according to different menopausal status, and stages. Only CA125 showed significant difference for discriminating HC and EOC in all the individuals, and ROMA for discriminating BPM and EOC in the all individuals and postmenopausal individuals when compared with HE4 or CA125. HE4 has showed no significant difference in specificity with all kinds of diseases when compared with CA125.
| S-EPMC5291636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Overall accuracy measures of medical tests are often used with unclear interpretations. To develop methods of calculating the overall accuracy of medical tests in the patient population. Algebraic equations based on Bayes' theorem. A new approach is proposed for calculating overall accuracy in the patient population. Examples and applications using published data are presented. The overall accuracy is the proportion of the correct test results. We introduce a clear distinction between the overall accuracy measures of medical tests that are aimed at the detection of a disease in a screening of populations for public health purposes in the general population and the overall accuracy measures of tests aimed at determining a diagnosis in individuals in a clinical setting. We show that the overall detection accuracy measure is obtained in a specific study that explores test accuracy among persons with known diagnoses and may be useful for public health screening tests. It is different from the overall diagnostic accuracy that could be calculated in the clinical setting for the evaluation of medical tests aimed at determining the individual patients' diagnoses. We show that the overall detection accuracy is constant and is not affected by the prevalence of the disease. In contrast, the overall diagnostic accuracy changes and is dependent on the prevalence. Moreover, it ranges according to the ratio between the sensitivity and specificity. Thus, when the sensitivity is greater than the specificity, the overall diagnostic accuracy increases with increasing prevalence, and vice versa, that is, when the sensitivity is lower than the specificity, the overall diagnostic accuracy decreases with increasing prevalence so that another test might be more useful for diagnostic procedures. Our paper suggests a new and more appropriate methodology for estimating the overall diagnostic accuracy of any medical test. This may be important for helping clinicians avoid errors.
| S-EPMC6186004 | biostudies-literature