Assessment of diagnostic utility of multivariate diagnostic models in differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors
Abstract
Introduction: Ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis remains a clinical challenge due to lack of early symptoms and insufficient accuracy of the available diagnostic methods. The purpose of this study was to determine whether osteopontin could be useful in differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors.
Material and methods: Serum samples from 92 patients qualified for surgical treatment due to ovarian mass were divided into 2 groups according to the histopathological result: OC including borderline ovarian tumors (n = 39) and benign ovarian tumors (BOTs) (n = 53). CA125, HE4 and osteopontin concentrations were measured in all patients. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC of ROC) were used to compare the discriminative ability of the univariate and multivariate diagnostic models.
Results: The addition of osteopontin to ROMA significantly improved the diagnostic performance of the test in 3 of the 5 analyses: 1) in the OC vs BOT group (from AUC of 0.955 to 0.975), 2) in premenopausal women OC vs BOT (from AUC of 0.828 to 0.892) and 3) in the FIGO I-II stage OC vs BOT (from AUC of 0.865 to 0.895). It did not alter the diagnostic performance of multifactor tests in the group of postmenopausal women nor in OC FIGO III-IV stage group. Osteopontin was also the
best single marker to differentiate between early stage OC and BOTs (AUC of 0.863).
Conclusions: Osteopontin improves the diagnostic performance of a multimarker OC diagnostic test and could be useful in differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors, especially in pre-menopausal women and for early stage OC.
Keywords: ovarian cancerovarian neoplasmsbiomarkersosteopontin
References
- Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136(5): E359–E386.
- Spaczyński M, Nowak-Markwitz E, Kędzia w, Bednarek W. Praktyczna ginekologia onkologiczna: podręcznik dla lekarzy. Wielkopolskie Towarzystwo Onkologii Ginekologicznej 2012.
- Levine D, Asch E, Mehta TS, et al. Assessment of factors that affect the quality of performance and interpretation of sonography of adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2008; 27(5): 721–728.
- Karlsen MA, Sandhu N, Høgdall C, et al. Evaluation of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) as diagnostic tools of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 127(2): 379–383.
- Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Valentin L, et al. International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. External validation of mathematical models to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13(15 Pt 1): 4440–4447.
- Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, et al. International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ. 2014; 349: g5920.
- Hu ZD, Wei TT, Yang M, et al. Diagnostic value of osteopontin in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5): e0126444.
- Horala A, Swiatly A, Matysiak J, et al. Diagnostic Value of Serum Angiogenesis Markers in Ovarian Cancer Using Multiplex Immunoassay. Int J Mol Sci. 2017; 18(1).
- Daraï E, Fauvet R, Uzan C, et al. Fertility and borderline ovarian tumor: a systematic review of conservative management, risk of recurrence and alternative options. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19(2): 151–166.
- Rittling S. Osteopontin in macrophage function. Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine. 2011; 13.
- Categorical meta-analysis of Osteopontin as a clinical cancer marker. Oncology Reports. 2011; 25(2).
- Song G, Cai QF, Mao YB, et al. Osteopontin promotes ovarian cancer progression and cell survival and increases HIF-1α expression through the PI3-K/Akt pathway. Cancer Science. 2008.
- Tilli TM, Franco VF, Robbs BK, et al. Osteopontin-c splicing isoform contributes to ovarian cancer progression. Mol Cancer Res. 2011; 9(3): 280–293.
- Bao LiH, Sakaguchi H, Fujimoto J, et al. Osteopontin in metastatic lesions as a prognostic marker in ovarian cancers. J Biomed Sci. 2007; 14(3): 373–381.
- Moszynski R, Szubert S, Szpurek D, et al. Role of osteopontin in differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013; 39(11): 1518–1525.
- Lan Z, Fu D, Yu X, et al. Diagnostic values of osteopontin combined with CA125 for ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Fam Cancer. 2016; 15(2): 221–230.
- Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). The Lancet Oncology. 2009; 10(4): 327–340.
- Mrochem-Kwarciak J, Mrochen-Domin I, Wojcieszek, A A, et al. Mrochem-Kwarciak, J.; Mrochen-Domin, I.; Wojcieszek, A.; Deja, R.; Chmura, A.; Masłyk, B.; Nowara, E.; Kaleta, B.; Kołosza, Z.; Bartnik, W. [Usefulness of osteopontin (OPN) determinations in ovarian cancer patients who underwent first-line chemotherapy]. Ginekol Pol. 2011; 82: 911–917.
- Schorge JO, Drake RD, Lee H, et al. Osteopontin as an adjunct to CA125 in detecting recurrent ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004; 10(10): 3474–3478.
