Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Molina R.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research
Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine | Year: 2011

The aim of this study is to evaluate a new tumour marker, HE4, in comparison with CA 125 and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in healthy women and in patients with benign and malignant gynaecological diseases. CA 125 and HE4 serum levels were determined in 66 healthy women, 285 patients with benign gynaecological diseases (68 endometriosis, 56 myomas, 137 ovarian cysts and 24 with other diseases), 33 patients with non-active gynaecological cancer and 143 with active gynaecological cancer (111 ovarian cancers). CA 125 and HE4 cut-offs were 35 U/mL and 150 pmol/L, respectively. ROMA algorithm cut-off was 13.1 and 27.7 for premenopausal or postmenopausal women, respectively. HE4, CA 125 and ROMA results were abnormal in 1.5%, 13.6% and 25.8% of healthy women and in 1.1%, 30.2% and 12.3% of patients with benign diseases, respectively. Among patients with cancer, HE4 (in contrast to CA 125) had significantly higher concentrations in ovarian cancer than in other malignancies (p < 0.001). Tumour marker sensitivity in ovarian cancer was 79.3% for HE4, 82.9% for CA 125 and 90.1% for ROMA. Both tumour markers, HE4 and CA 125 were related to tumour stage and histological type, with the lowest concentrations in mucinous tumours. A significantly higher area under the ROC curve was obtained with ROMA and HE4 than with CA 125 in the differential diagnosis of benign gynaecological diseases versus malignant ovarian cancer (0.952, 0.936 and 0.853, respectively). Data from our population indicate that ROMA algorithm might be further improved if it is used only in patients with normal HE4 and abnormal CA 125 serum levels (cancer risk for this profile is 44.4%). ROMA algorithm in HE4 positive had a similar sensitivity and only increases the specificity by 3.2% compared to HE4 alone. Source


Molina R.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Auge J.M.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Farrus B.,Hospital Clinic | Zanon G.,Hospital Clinic | And 7 more authors.
Clinical Chemistry | Year: 2010

BACKGROUND: The utility of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) as prognostic factors in primary breast cancer is unclear. METHODS: We prospectively studied CEA and CA 15.3 in the sera of 2062 patients with untreated primary breast cancer diagnosed between 1984 and 2008. RESULTS: Increased CEA (>5 μg/L) and CA 15.3 (>30 kU/L) concentrations were found in 12.7% and 19.6% of the patients, respectively, and 1 or both tumor markers were increased in 28% (570 of 2062). Increases in each tumor marker correlated with larger tumor sizes and nodal involvement. Tumor size, estrogen receptor (ER), and CEA were independent prognostic factors by multivariate analysis in the total group [disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)] as well as in node-positive (NP) and node-negative (NN) patients. Nodal involvement and histological grade were independent prognostic factors in the total group as well as in NP patients. By contrast, adjuvant treatment and CA 15.3 were independent prognostic factors only in NN patients (DFS and OS). All patients with CEA >7.5 μg/L had recurrence during follow-up. Use of both tumor markers allowed discrimination of the groups of risk in T1 NN patients: 56.3% of recurrences were seen when 1 or both tumor markers were increased, whereas only 9.4% of recurrences were seen in T1 NN patients without increases of either marker. CONCLUSIONS: CEA and CA 15.3 are useful prognostic factors in NP andNNbreast cancer patients. CEA>7.5 μg/L is associated with a high probability of subclinical metastases. © 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry. Source


Escudero J.M.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Auge J.M.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Filella X.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Torne A.,Medical School | And 2 more authors.
Clinical Chemistry | Year: 2011

BACKGROUND: Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), a precursor of human epididymis protein, has been proposed as a tumor marker for ovarian cancer. We evaluated HE4 in comparison with cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) in healthy individuals and in patients with benign and malignant diseases. METHODS: CA 125 and HE4 serum concentrations were determined in 101 healthy individuals, 535 patients with benign pathologies (292 with benign gynecologic diseases) and 423 patients with malignant diseases (127 with ovarian cancers). CA 125 and HE4 cutoffs were 35 kU/L and 140 pmol/L, respectively. RESULTS: HE4 and CA 125 results were abnormal in 1.1% and 9.9% of healthy individuals and in 12.3% and 37% of patients with benign diseases, respectively. Renal failure was the most common cause of increased HE4 in patients with benign disease, who had significantly higher HE4 concentrations (P = 0.001) than patients with other benign diseases. HE4 showed a higher specificity than CA 125 in patients with benign gynecologic diseases, with abnormal concentrations in 1.3% and 33.2% of the patients, respectively. HE-4 concentrations were abnormal primarily in gynecologic cancer and lung cancer. By contrast, CA 125 was increased in many different nonovarian malignancies, including nonepithelial tumors. A significantly higher area under the ROC curve was obtained with HE4 than with CA 125 for differentiating benign from malignant diseases (0.755 vs 0.643) and in the differential diagnosis of gynecologic diseases (0.874 vs 0.722). CONCLUSIONS: HE4 has significantly higher diagnostic specificity than CA 125, and the combination of CA 125 and HE4 improved the detection of ovarian cancer in all stages and histological types. © 2011 American Association for Clinical Chemistry. Source


Molina R.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Escudero J.M.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Auge J.M.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | Filella X.,Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry Unit for Cancer Research | And 4 more authors.
Tumor Biology | Year: 2011

The aim of this study is to evaluate a new tumour marker, HE4, in comparison with CA 125 and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in healthy women and in patients with benign and malignant gynaecological diseases. CA 125 and HE4 serum levels were determined in 66 healthy women, 285 patients with benign gynaecological diseases (68 endometriosis, 56 myomas, 137 ovarian cysts and 24 with other diseases), 33 patients with non-active gynaecological cancer and 143 with active gynaecological cancer (111 ovarian cancers). CA 125 and HE4 cut-offs were 35 U/mL and 150 pmol/L, respectively. ROMA algorithm cut-off was 13.1 and 27.7 for premenopausal or postmenopausal women, respectively. HE4, CA 125 and ROMA results were abnormal in 1.5%, 13.6% and 25.8% of healthy women and in 1.1%, 30.2% and 12.3% of patients with benign diseases, respectively. Among patients with cancer, HE4 (in contrast to CA 125) had significantly higher concentrations in ovarian cancer than in other malignancies (p < 0.001). Tumour marker sensitivity in ovarian cancer was 79.3% for HE4, 82.9% for CA 125 and 90.1% for ROMA. Both tumour markers, HE4 and CA 125 were related to tumour stage and histological type, with the lowest concentrations in mucinous tumours. A significantly higher area under the ROC curve was obtained with ROMA and HE4 than with CA 125 in the differential diagnosis of benign gynaecological diseases versus malignant ovarian cancer (0.952, 0.936 and 0.853, respectively). Data from our population indicate that ROMA algorithm might be further improved if it is used only in patients with normal HE4 and abnormal CA 125 serum levels (cancer risk for this profile is 44.4%). ROMA algorithm in HE4 positive had a similar sensitivity and only increases the specificity by 3.2% compared to HE4 alone. © 2011 International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM). Source

Discover hidden collaborations