Author:
Shi Huihui,Liu Liya,Deng Xueli,Xing Xiaoyu,Zhang Yan,Djouda Rebecca Yemeli,Han Liping
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
Investigating the utility of serum exosomal markers CA125, HE4, and C5a, both individually and in combination, for distinguishing between benign and malignant ovarian tumors.
Methods
In this study, we selected a total of 234 patients diagnosed with ovarian tumors, including 34 with malignant tumors, 10 with borderline ovarian tumors, and 190 with benign tumors. This study conducted comparisons of exosomal levels of CA125, HE4, and C5a among distinct groups, as well as making comparisons between serum and exosomal levels of CA125 and HE4. Furthermore, the diagnostic performance was assessed through Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was computed, and a comparative evaluation of sensitivity and specificity was conducted to ascertain their effectiveness in determining the nature of ovarian tumors across different markers.
Results
Serum CA125 and HE4 levels, the ROMA index, exosomal CA125, HE4, C5a levels, and their combined applied value (OCS value) were notably elevated in the ovarian non-benign tumor group compared to the benign tumor group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). Exosomal and serum levels of CA125 and HE4 exhibited a positive correlation, with concentrations of these markers in serum surpassing those in exosomes. The combined OCS (AUC = 0.871) for CA125, HE4, and C5a in exosomes demonstrated superior sensitivity (0.773) and specificity (0.932) compared to serum tumor markers (CA125, HE4) and the ROMA index. The tumor stage represents an autonomous risk factor influencing the prognosis of individuals with ovarian malignancies.
Conclusion
The stage of ovarian malignancy is an independent risk factor for its prognosis. The combination of exosomal CA125, HE4 and C5a has a higher clinical value for the identification of the nature of ovarian tumours.
Funder
The Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province of China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17–48.
2. Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, Ledermann J, McCluggage WG, McNeish I et al. ,. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent diseasedagger. Ann Oncol 2019, 30(5): 672–705
3. Chan JK, Teoh D, Hu JM, Shin JY, Osann K, Kapp DS. Do clear cell ovarian carcinomas have poorer prognosis compared to other epithelial cell types? A study of 1411 clear cell ovarian cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(3):370–6.
4. Heintz AP, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Creasman WT et al. ,. Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006, 95 Suppl 1: S161-192
5. Zeppernick F, Meinhold-Heerlein I. The new FIGO staging system for ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(5):839–42.