Elsevier

Clinica Chimica Acta

Volume 412, Issues 15–16, 15 July 2011, Pages 1447-1453
Clinica Chimica Acta

HE4 and epithelial ovarian cancer: Comparison and clinical evaluation of two immunoassays and a combination algorithm

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2011.04.028Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Two commercial immunoassays for HE4 have been compared and the diagnostic accuracy of HE4, CA 125 and the combinatory ROMA algorithm for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has been evaluated.

Methods

HE4 and CA125 were measured on sera obtained from 259 women (73 healthy, 90 with benign ovarian or adnexal diseases, 96 with EOC). The ARCHITECT CMIA HE4 assay was compared with the Fujirebio EIA HE4, and the risk for EOC by the combinatory ROMA algorithm (HE4 + CA 125) was assessed with both HE4 assays.

Results

The CMIA HE4 assay showed a good linearity (r > 0.9998) and precision (interassay and total CVs < 4%). The correlation with EIA HE4 was linear (r = 0.994), with an average bias of 0.4%. By ROC curve analysis, the sensitivity for EOC at a fixed specificity of 90%, 95% and 99% was 89.6%, 84.4% and 79.2% by CMIA HE4, 84.4%, 83.3% and 79.2% by EIA HE4, 86.5%, 76.0% and 59.4% by CMIA CA125. The accuracy of the ROMA algorithm determined by CMIA or EIA HE4 was very similar (AUC 87.1% vs. 87.6%; p = n.s.) and greater in menopause.

Conclusions

The two HE4 assays showed a good correlation and similar clinical value, with a greater precision for CMIA. HE4 was more specific and accurate than CA125, supporting its use in addition to clinical and imaging criteria for the discrimination of benign from malignant ovarian lesions. The ROMA algorithm showed a good accuracy for discriminating women at high risk for EOC.

Introduction

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women in the European Union, with an incidence of 18/100,000 women and represents the first cause of death for gynecological cancer and the third cause of death for oncologic diseases [1]. In Italy the standardized incidence, according to the National Cancer Register, is 13.5/100,000 and about 3000 deaths are reported every year, with a standardized mortality of 4.5/100,000 [2]. As for other malignancies, the survival rate is inversely proportional to the stage of the disease at diagnosis; women diagnosed in stages I–II have a 70% survival at 5 years, compared to less than 30% for patients in stages III and IV [1], [3], [4]. Thus, an early diagnosis in women presenting with suspect signs or symptoms is required in order to guarantee a better prognosis.

Laboratory diagnosis for ovarian cancer is mostly based on the quantitative determination of CA 125; though a broad array of immunoassays is available for the measurement of this mucin, established immunoassays for CA125 rely on the employ of well validated monoclonal antibodies. CA 125 is commonly employed for the baseline evaluation before treatment, during chemotherapy to evaluate the response and in patients’ monitoring during follow-up to detect recurrences earlier than the development of clinical symptoms [1], [4], [5], [6]. However the use of this marker as a first-line screening assay, alone or in combination with other procedures, is not recommended owing to the relatively low specificity and positive predictive value [7], [8]. Over the last years a number of additional markers for EOC have been proposed and studied, either alone or, most commonly, in association on the purpose of increasing the diagnostic accuracy, especially in the earlier stages of disease. In the majority of studies the human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) has emerged as one of the most promising markers [9], [10]. HE4 was initially identified in the epithelium of the distal epididymis and originally predicted to be a protease inhibitor involved in sperm maturation. It is also called WFDC2 because it contains two whey acid protein domains and a “four disulphide bond core” made up from eight cysteine residues.

The relevance of this marker in gynecological oncology is due to the fact that HE4 protein expression is highly restricted in normal tissue to the reproductive tracts and respiratory epithelium and is commonly overexpressed in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). While HE4 levels in healthy individuals have been reported to increase with age and are significantly higher in menopause [10], [11], [12], high levels are found in the serum of patients with EOC, mainly in serous and endometroid cancers [10], as well as in patients with endometrial cancer, but not in women with benign gynecological diseases or with endometriosis. As a consequence, HE4 has been reported to have a clear specificity edge over CA125 and also a better sensitivity for EOC, both in general and in the early stages as well as in the monitoring of treated patients [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

The idea of combining the results of CA125 and HE4 in an algorithm (ROMA: Risk for Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) that may help assessing the increased risk for EOC in symptomatic women has also been proposed [17], [18]. Furthermore, while the first studies on HE4 have been carried out with a conventional enzyme immunoassay (EIA), a fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay has been recently made available. We therefore aimed at evaluating this new assay for HE4 in comparison with the EIA and also to verify the diagnostic accuracy for EOC of HE4 determination. We also evaluated the results of the ROMA algorithm generated by either HE4 immunoassay on a preselected population of Italian women.

Section snippets

Patients

In this retrospective study the population was selected in order to obtain a fairly balanced number of cases with benign or malignant ovarian lesions, an adequate representation of healthy controls and a proportion of pre- and post-menopausal women similar to that observed in routine clinical practice. Overall, 259 female patients were selected among those admitted to the Gynecologic Oncology unit of the University of Brescia from 2006. The inclusion criteria were: availability of complete

HE4 assays comparison

The intra-assay and interassay imprecision (CV%) of the CMIA HE4 assay was 2.11% and 3.64% on the low level control, 2.63% and 3.13% on the medium level control, 2.93% and 3.70% on the high level control. By comparison, the intraassay and interassays CVs% for the EIA HE4 assay, also evaluated on controls, ranged from 5.8% to 10.6% and from 6.8% to 10.3%, respectively.

For the CMIA assay, the average recovery on the two serially diluted specimens was 98.5 ± 9.0% (median: 98.5%) and the correlation

Discussion

Despite the severity of ovarian cancer, the low prevalence (about 40 cases per 100,000 in women aged more than 50 years) and the invasive nature of diagnostic procedures by laparoscopy or laparotomy is a serious hurdle for establishing screening policies. A 99.7% specificity will have anyway a positive predictive value of 10% at best, resulting in 9 healthy women undergoing invasive testing for each ovarian cancer diagnosed [4], [6], [7], [8] and in a recent experience in which CA125 has been

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all the nurses working in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the University of Brescia, and especially Ms. Margherita Franzoni, for the assistance in collecting blood samples. We are also grateful to Ms. Michela Faustini for her essential technical contribution in performing the ARCHITECT assays. We are also grateful to Dr. Michele Tronchin (Abbott Diagnostics, Italy) for having performed some of the statistical evaluations.

References (33)

  • B. Nolen et al.

    Serum biomarker panels for the discrimination of benign from malignant cases in patients with an adnexal mass

    Gynecol Oncol

    (2010)
  • M.R. Andersen et al.

    Use of a symptom index, CA125, and HE4 to predict ovarian cancer

    Gynecol Oncol

    (2010)
  • National Program for Guidelines

    Diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer

    Italian Ministry of Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Document n. 7, March

    (2004)
  • S. Bhoola et al.

    Diagnosis and management of epithelial ovarian cancer

    Obstet Gynecol

    (2006)
  • C.M. Sturgeon et al.

    National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers

    Clin Chem

    (2008)
  • R.C. Bast

    Status of tumor markers in ovarian cancer screening

    J Clin Oncol

    (2003)
  • Cited by (100)

    • Sensor detection in gynaecological medicine

      2022, Sensors and Diagnostics
    • Diagnostic performance of HE4 and ROMA among Chinese women

      2020, Clinica Chimica Acta
      Citation Excerpt :

      In recent years, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), also known as WAP four disulfide core 2 (WFDC2), has been considered to be one of the most promising biomarkers for ovarian cancer diagnosis. Several previous articles have shown that HE4 has significantly higher diagnostic specificity and sensitivity than CA 125 [8,12,15–20]. Similarly, many studies have proposed the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), which involves the combined use of HE4 and CA 125, to improve the sensitivity and specificity in patients with pelvic masses [11,12,21–28].

    • The contribution and perspectives of proteomics to uncover ovarian cancer tumor markers

      2019, Translational Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The Risk Of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) is based on serum CA125 level, serum HE4 level and menopausal status and was approved by the FDA in 2011 (http://edrn.nci.nih.gov/biomarkers/roma). This algorithm has been evaluated in several studies and has shown good performance in pre and postmenopausal women for distinguishing between benign and malignant pelvic mass,149–153 moreover, exhibiting similar or better discrimination of cancer from benign tumors than the ultrasound dependent RMI (Risk of Malignancy Index).154–156 The ultrasound prediction model developed by IOTA has been shown to have better diagnostic performance than ROMA in the hands of expert sonographers.157

    • New trends in diagnosing and treating ovarian cancer using nanotechnology

      2023, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Disclaimer: Dr. Claudio Galli is currently employed by Abbott Diagnostics as the Scientific Affairs Manager, Italy.

    View full text