The performance of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm
2011

Performance of Ovarian Cancer Diagnostic Tests

publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Langmár Z, Németh M, Székely B, Borgulya G

Primary Institution: Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary

Hypothesis

Do HE4 and ROMA improve the detection of malignant ovarian disease compared to CA125 alone?

Conclusion

The study suggests that HE4 and ROMA do not significantly improve the detection of ovarian cancer compared to CA125 alone.

Supporting Evidence

  • HE4 and ROMA did not increase the detection of malignant disease compared to CA125 alone.
  • The AUC values for ROMA, CA125, and HE4 showed a trend for better performance for ROMA.
  • Van Gorp's study had a higher cancer incidence rate compared to other studies.

Takeaway

The study looked at different tests to find ovarian cancer, but found that adding new tests didn't help more than the old one.

Methodology

The study compared the diagnostic performance of serum tumour markers CA125 and HE4 and the ROMA clinical risk stratification tool using serum samples from patients with ovarian mass.

Potential Biases

Incomplete description of study objectives and population could lead to bias.

Limitations

The study lacked a clear explanation of sample size calculation and power, which may affect the validity of the results.

Participant Demographics

The study included a high cancer incidence rate and a higher proportion of postmenopausal women compared to other studies.

Statistical Information

Confidence Interval

AUC(ROMA)–AUC(CA125)=0.021 (−0.009 to 0.051)

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/bjc.2011.224

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication