Comparison of serum cancer antigen 125, human epididymis protein 4, ROMA, and CPH-I for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in Chinese patients with ovarian mass / 南方医科大学学报

OBJECTIVE@#To compare the performance of serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen index (CPH-I) for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases in patients with ovarian mass.@*METHODS@#We retrospectively analyzed the data of 719 women with pelvic mass, and the performance of preoperative serum levels of CA125 and HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for differential diagnosis of the masses was compared.@*RESULTS@#Of the 710 women analyzed, 531 were diagnosed with benign ovarian lesions, 44 with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs), 119 with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs), and 25 with non-EOCs. In differentiating ovarian cancer (OC) and BOT from benign lesions, the area under the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.854 for HE4, 0.856 for ROMA, 0.854 for CPH-I, and 0.792 for CA125, demonstrating better diagnostic performance of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I than CA125 alone; the diagnostic sensitivity was 56.9% for HE4, 70.2% for CA125, 69.1% for ROMA, and 63.8% for CPH-I; the specificity was the best with HE4 (94.4%) and CPH-I (94.7%). In sub-analysis of EOC benign lesions, the AUCs of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I increased to 0.946, 0.947, and 0.943, respectively, all greater than that of CA125 (0.888). In other sub-analyses, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I all showed greater AUCs than CA125 alone.@*CONCLUSIONS@#This study confirms the accuracy of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I for differentiating malignant from benign ovarian mass, and all these 3 tests show better performance than CA125. Furthermore, HE4 and CPH-I is superior to ROMA and CA125 in terms of specificity, while CA125 and ROMA have better diagnostic sensitivities.

Comparison of PG-SGA, NRS 2002 and BIA in nutritional assessment and screening of patients with gynecologic cancers / 肠外与肠内营养

Objective:To evaluate the application of PG-SGA,NRS 2002 and BIA in nutritional assessment and screening of patients with gynecologic cancers.Methods:118 patients were randomly selected.Nutritional status were evaluated by PG-SGA,NRS 2002 and BIA,and consistency between each tools were compared.Results:The prevalence of malnutrition or nutritional risk of patients were 64.4％ (PG-SGA),57.6％ (NRS 2002),and 33.9％ (BIA) respectively.In all patients,the consistency of PG-SGA and NRS 2002 was high (P ＜ 0.001),while there were not significantly consistent between BIA and PG-SGA,or between BIA and NRS 2002 (P ＜ 0.001).Conclusion:According to the evaluation of PG-SGA or NRS 2002 in gynecologic patients,the prevalence of malnutrition or nutritional risk is high,and these two scales are suitable for nutritional assessment and screening of gynecologic cancer patients,especially in ovarian cancer patients.In addition,BIA may be a promising tool to evaluate cervical cancer patients' nutritional status.