Suppr超能文献

上皮性卵巢癌患者卵巢恶性肿瘤风险的诊断措施比较:一项荟萃分析。

Diagnostic measures comparison for ovarian malignancy risk in Epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Biochemistry, SGT Medical College Hospital and Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, 122505, India.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 27;11(1):17308. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96552-9.

Abstract

Epithelial ovarian cancer has become the most frequent cause of deaths among gynecologic malignancies. Our study elucidates the diagnostic performance of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) and cancer antigen (CA125). To compare the diagnostic accuracy of ROMA, HE-4 and CA125 in the early diagnosis and screening of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Literature search in electronic databases such as Medicine: MEDLINE (through PUBMED interface), EMBASE, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Cochrane library from January 2011 to August 2020. Studies that evaluated the diagnostic measures of ROMA, HE4 and CA125 by using Chemilumincence immunoassay or electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA or ECLIA) as index tests. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). We included 32 studies in our meta-analysis. We calculated AUC by SROC, pooled estimated like sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), Tau square, Cochran Q through random effect analysis and meta-regression. Data was retrieved from 32 studies. The number of studies included for HE4, CA125 and ROMA tests was 25, 26 and 22 respectively. The patients with EOC were taken as cases, and women with benign ovarian mass were taken as control, which was 2233/5682, 2315/5875 and 2281/5068 respectively for the markers or algorithm. The pooled estimates of the markers or algorithm were sensitivity: ROMA (postmenopausal) (0.88, 95% CI 0.86-0.89) > ROMA (premenopausal) 0.80, 95% CI 0.78-0.83 > CA-125(0.84, 95% CI 0.82-0.85) > HE4 (0.73, 95% CI 0.71-0.75) specificity: HE4 (0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91) > ROMA (postmenopausal) (0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.84) > ROMA (premenopausal) (0.80, 95% CI 0.79-0.82) > CA125 (0.73, 95%CI 0.72-0.74), Diagnostic odd's ratio ROMA (postmenopausal) 44.04, 95% CI 31.27-62.03, ROMA (premenopausal)-18.93, 95% CI 13.04-27.48, CA-125-13.44, 95% CI 9.97-18.13, HE4-41.03, 95% CI 27.96-60.21 AUC(SE): ROMA (postmenopausal) 0.94(0.01), ROMA (premenopausal)-0.88(0.01), HE4 0.91(0.01), CA125-0.86(0.02) through bivariate random effects model considering the heterogeneity. Our study found ROMA as the best marker to differentiate EOC from benign ovarian masses with greater diagnostic accuracy as compared to HE4 and CA125 in postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women, HE4 is a promising predictor of Epithelial ovarian cancer; however, its utilisation requires further exploration. Our study elucidates the diagnostic performance of ROMA, HE4 and CA125 in EOC. ROMA is a promising diagnostic marker of Epithelial ovarian cancers in postmenopausal women, while HE4 is the best diagnostic predictor of EOC in the premenopausal group. Our study had only EOC patients as cases and those with benign ovarian masses as controls. Further, we considered the studies estimated using the markers by the same index test: CLIA or ECLIA. The good number of studies with strict inclusion criteria reduced bias because of the pooling of studies with different analytical methods, especially for HE4. We did not consider the studies published in foreign languages. Since a few studies were available for HE4 and CA125 in the premenopausal and postmenopausal group separately, data were inadequate for sub-group analysis. Further, we did not assess these markers' diagnostic efficiency stratified by the stage and type of tumour due to insufficient studies.

摘要

上皮性卵巢癌已成为妇科恶性肿瘤中死亡的最常见原因。我们的研究阐明了风险卵巢恶性肿瘤算法(ROMA)、人附睾分泌蛋白 4(HE4)和癌症抗原(CA125)的诊断性能。比较 ROMA、HE-4 和 CA125 在早期诊断和筛查上皮性卵巢癌中的诊断准确性。从 2011 年 1 月至 2020 年 8 月,在电子数据库中进行文献检索,如医学:MEDLINE(通过 PUBMED 界面)、EMBASE、Google Scholar、Science Direct 和 Cochrane 图书馆。评估 ROMA、HE4 和 CA125 的诊断措施的研究,这些研究使用化学发光免疫分析或电化学发光免疫分析(CLIA 或 ECLIA)作为指标测试。使用诊断准确性研究的质量评估(QUADAS-2)。我们的荟萃分析纳入了 32 项研究。我们通过 SROC 计算 AUC,汇总估计似然比、敏感性、特异性、诊断优势比(DOR)、Tau 平方、Cochran Q 通过随机效应分析和荟萃回归。从 32 项研究中检索到数据。纳入 HE4、CA125 和 ROMA 检测的研究数量分别为 25、26 和 22。将卵巢上皮性癌患者作为病例,将良性卵巢肿块患者作为对照,标记物或算法的病例数分别为 2233/5682、2315/5875 和 2281/5068。标记物或算法的汇总估计值为:敏感性:ROMA(绝经后)(0.88,95%CI 0.86-0.89)>ROMA(绝经前)0.80,95%CI 0.78-0.83>CA-125(0.84,95%CI 0.82-0.85)>HE4(0.73,95%CI 0.71-0.75),特异性:HE4(0.90,95%CI 0.89-0.91)>ROMA(绝经后)(0.83,95%CI 0.81-0.84)>ROMA(绝经前)(0.80,95%CI 0.79-0.82)>CA125(0.73,95%CI 0.72-0.74),诊断优势比 ROMA(绝经后)44.04,95%CI 31.27-62.03,ROMA(绝经前)-18.93,95%CI 13.04-27.48,CA-125-13.44,95%CI 9.97-18.13,HE4-41.03,95%CI 27.96-60.21,AUC(SE):ROMA(绝经后)0.94(0.01),ROMA(绝经前)-0.88(0.01),HE4 0.91(0.01),CA125-0.86(0.02)通过考虑异质性的二元随机效应模型得出。我们的研究发现,与 HE4 和 CA125 相比,ROMA 是区分卵巢上皮性癌和良性卵巢肿块的最佳标志物,具有更高的诊断准确性,尤其是在绝经后女性中。在绝经前女性中,HE4 是上皮性卵巢癌的一个有前途的预测因子,然而,其应用需要进一步探索。我们的研究阐明了 ROMA、HE4 和 CA125 在卵巢上皮性癌中的诊断性能。ROMA 是绝经后女性上皮性卵巢癌的一种很有前途的诊断标志物,而 HE4 是绝经前组中诊断上皮性卵巢癌的最佳诊断预测因子。我们的研究只有卵巢上皮性癌患者作为病例,良性卵巢肿块患者作为对照。此外,我们考虑了使用相同指标测试(CLIA 或 ECLIA)评估标志物的研究。由于对具有不同分析方法的研究进行了汇总,因此严格纳入标准的大量研究减少了偏倚,尤其是对于 HE4。我们没有考虑用外语发表的研究。由于在绝经前和绝经后组中 HE4 和 CA125 的研究数量较少,因此亚组分析的数据不足。此外,由于研究数量不足,我们没有根据肿瘤的阶段和类型评估这些标志物的诊断效率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef16/8397730/17e5ed4e87a2/41598_2021_96552_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验