We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Diagnostic Performance of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm Against CA125 and HE4 in Connection With Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2016 November
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) is more accurate than the human epididymis 4 (HE4) or carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) biomarkers with respect to the differential diagnosis of women with a pelvic mass. The secondary objective is to assess the performance of ROMA in early-stage ovarian cancer (OC) and late-stage OC, as well as premenopausal and postmenopausal patient populations.
METHODS/MATERIALS: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant clinical studies. Eligibility criteria included comparison of ROMA with both HE4 and CA125 levels in OC (unspecified, epithelial, and borderline ovarian tumors), use of only validated ROMA assays, presentation of area under the curve and sensitivity/specificity data, and results from early-stage OC, late-stage OC and premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity/specificity, and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) results were summarized.
RESULTS: Five studies were selected comprising 1975 patients (premenopausal, n = 1033; postmenopausal, n = 925; benign, n = 1387; early stage, n = 192; and late stage, n = 313). On the basis of the AUC (95% confidence interval) data for all patients, ROMA (0.921 [0.855-0.960]) had a numerically greater diagnostic performance than CA125 (0.883 [0.771-0.950]) and HE4 (0.899 [0.835-0.943]). This was also observed in each of the subgroup populations, in particular, the postmenopausal patients and patients with early OC. The sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) results showed ROMA (sensitivity, 0.873 [0.752-0.940]; specificity, 0.855 [0.719-0.932]) to be numerically superior to CA125 (sensitivity, 0.796 [0.663-0.885]; specificity, 0.825 [0.662-0.919]) and HE4 (sensitivity, 0.817 [0.683-0.902]; specificity, 0.851 [0.716-0.928]) in all patients and for the early- and late-stage OC subgroups. Finally, the ROMA log DOR results were better than HE4 and CA125 log DOR results especially for the early-stage patient group.
CONCLUSIONS: The results presented support the use of ROMA to improve clinical decision making, most notably in patients with early OC.
METHODS/MATERIALS: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant clinical studies. Eligibility criteria included comparison of ROMA with both HE4 and CA125 levels in OC (unspecified, epithelial, and borderline ovarian tumors), use of only validated ROMA assays, presentation of area under the curve and sensitivity/specificity data, and results from early-stage OC, late-stage OC and premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity/specificity, and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) results were summarized.
RESULTS: Five studies were selected comprising 1975 patients (premenopausal, n = 1033; postmenopausal, n = 925; benign, n = 1387; early stage, n = 192; and late stage, n = 313). On the basis of the AUC (95% confidence interval) data for all patients, ROMA (0.921 [0.855-0.960]) had a numerically greater diagnostic performance than CA125 (0.883 [0.771-0.950]) and HE4 (0.899 [0.835-0.943]). This was also observed in each of the subgroup populations, in particular, the postmenopausal patients and patients with early OC. The sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) results showed ROMA (sensitivity, 0.873 [0.752-0.940]; specificity, 0.855 [0.719-0.932]) to be numerically superior to CA125 (sensitivity, 0.796 [0.663-0.885]; specificity, 0.825 [0.662-0.919]) and HE4 (sensitivity, 0.817 [0.683-0.902]; specificity, 0.851 [0.716-0.928]) in all patients and for the early- and late-stage OC subgroups. Finally, the ROMA log DOR results were better than HE4 and CA125 log DOR results especially for the early-stage patient group.
CONCLUSIONS: The results presented support the use of ROMA to improve clinical decision making, most notably in patients with early OC.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app