Comparison of ultrasound and tumor marker CA125 in diagnosis of adnexal mass malignancies

Behnamfar, Fariba; Esmaeilian, Fatemeh; Adibi, Atoosa; Rouholamin, Safoura

Comparison of ultrasound and tumor marker CA125 in diagnosis of adnexal mass malignancies

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

² Department of Radiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: CA125 is the most used tumor marker for ovarian cancer monitoring and diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the capacity to predict malignancy in women with adnexal tumors using CA125 measurement and ultrasound criteria before the pathological examination. Materials and Methods: This observational diagnostic study was conducted on 300 patients with obvious diagnosis of adnexal mass consists of ovarian masses, fallopian tubes, and masses within the broad ligament referring to Alzahra and Beheshti Hospitals from 2018 to 2019. Ultrasound examinations were done before surgery and malignancy risk was investigated by the ADNEX criterion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (likelihood ratio [LR]+ and LR−), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: From 284 patients, 260 masses were categorized in benign, 18 were in borderline, and 18 masses were malignant. The mean age of patients with malignant tumors was significantly higher than the others (P = 0.01). Differences in the level of CA-125 were not statistically significant (P = 0.78). Furthermore, the proportion of ascites in the malignant group (16.3%) was significantly higher than the others (P = 0.003). The AUC in ADNEX model (cutoff ≥9%) for differentiation of benign and malignant tumors was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.80) with a sensitivity of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.41–0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74–0.84). Receiver operating characteristic analysis for CA-125 revealed that this variable is not capable for discrimination between benign and malignant tumors as the AUCs of the aforementioned variable were 0.60, 0.60, and 0.52 for the whole patients, premenopause, and postmenopause categories. Conclusion: CA-125 marker, along with other ultrasound findings, can be more accurate in identifying the malignancy of the adnexa tumor.

Keywords

References

1.	Sagi-Dain L, Lavie O, Auslander R, Sagi S. CEA in evaluation of adnexal mass: Retrospective cohort analysis and review of the literature. Int J Biol Markers 2015;30:e394-400.
2.	Ries LA, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Stinchcomb DG, Howlader N, Horner MJ, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2005. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2008. p. 2999.
3.	Bozkurt M, Yumru AE, Aral I. Evaluation of the importance of the serum levels of CA-125, CA15-3, CA-19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen and alpha fetoprotein for distinguishing benign and malignant adnexal masses and contribution of different test combinations to diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2013;34:540-4.
4.	Zheng H, Tie Y, Wang X, Yang Y, Wei X, Zhao X. Assessment of the diagnostic value of using serum CA125 and GI-RADS system in the evaluation of adnexal masses. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e14577.
5.	Sagi-Dain L, Lavie O, Auslander R, Sagi S. Clinical Use and Optimal Cutoff Value of Ca15-3 in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass: Retrospective Cohort Study and Review of the Literature. Am J Clin Oncol 2018;41:838-44.
6.	Aust S, Seebacher-Shariat V. Screening for ovarian cancer: Is there still hope?. Memo Mag Eur Med Oncol 2020;13:189-92.
7.	Meys EM, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RF, Slangen BF, van Calster B, Aertgeerts B, et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2016;58:17-29.
8.	Dong X, Men X, Zhang W, Lei P. Advances in tumor markers of ovarian cancer for early diagnosis. Indian J Cancer 2014;51 Suppl 3:e72-6.
9.	Nossov V, Amneus M, Su F, Lang J, Janco JM, Reddy ST, et al. The early detection of ovarian cancer: From traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:215-23.
10.	Yoshida A, Derchain SF, Pitta DR, Crozatti N, Andrade LA, da Silva RF, et al. Preoperative measurement of serum C-reactive protein: Is it useful in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses? Int J Biol Markers 2017;32:e83-9.
11.	Jacobs IJ, Menon U. Progress and challenges in screening for early detection of ovarian cancer. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004;3:355-66.
12.	van Calster B, van Hoorde K, Valentin L, Testa AC, Fischerova D, van Holsbeke C, et al. 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.
13.	Meys EM, Jeelof LS, Achten NM, Slangen BF, Lambrechts S, Kruitwagen RF, et al. Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: External validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49:784-92.
14.	Madadi Ghahan R, Aghafarajollah S, Zareiy S. Refractory evaluation of sonografic and pathologic findings in 100 patients with ovarian mass in Naft hospital. EBNESINA 2007;10:16-20.
15.	Farzaneh F, Saburi M, Rahimi F. Risk of malignancy index in preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors in Iranian women referred to Taleghani Hospital. Iran J Gynecol Obstet 2010;5:50-5.
16.	Varras M. Benefits and limitations of ultrasonographic evaluation of uterine adnexal lesions in early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2004;31:85-98.
17.	Rauh-Hain JA, Krivak TC, Del Carmen MG, Olawaiye AB. Ovarian cancer screening and early detection in the general population. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2011;4:15-21.
18.	Timmerman D, van Calster B, Testa A, Savelli L, Fischerova D, Froyman W, et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214:424-37.

Advanced Biomedical Research