Diagnostic value of Copenhagen index in premenopausal and postmenopausal ovarian cancer / 肿瘤研究与临床

ABSTRACT

Objective:To compare the diagnostic value of Copenhagen index (CPH-I), serum carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in premenopausal and postmenopausal women.Methods:The clinical data of 239 patients with ovarian tumor treated in People's Hospital of Rizhao in Shandong Province from January 2017 to January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into ovarian benign disease group (152 cases) and ovarian cancer group (87 cases) according to postoperative pathology. The receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) was drawn with surgical pathology as the gold standard; the area under the curve (AUC) and the sensitivity and specificity of CPH-I, CA125, HE4, ROMA were calculated. The diagnostic performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for diagnosis of ovarian cancer was compared in overall, premenopausal and postmenopausal patients.Results:The CA125 level, HE4 level, ROMA index, and CPH-I predicted probability (PP) values of ovarian cancer group were higher than those of ovarian benign disease group, and the differences were statistically significant (all P < 0.01). The AUC of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in the overall patients was 0.935 (95% CI 0.896-0.963), 0.940 (95% CI 0.901-0.966), 0.964 (95% CI0.932-0.984), 0.964 (95% CI 0.932-0.984); the AUC differences of CA125 and ROMA, CA125 and CPH-I (PP values), HE4 and ROMA, HE4 and CPH-I PP values were statistically significant (P values were 0.036, 0.009, 0.018, 0.019). The AUC of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in the premenopausal patients was 0.947 (95% CI 0.896-0.978), 0.949 (95% CI 0.898-0.979), 0.944 (95% CI 0.893-0.976), which were all larger than AUC of CA125 (0.921) (95% CI 0.863-0.960), the differences were statistically significant (P values were 0.036, 0.036, 0.026); AUC of CA125, ROMA, CPH-I PP values in postmenopausal patients was 0.953 (95% CI 0.891-0.986), 0.947 (95% CI 0.882-0.982), 0.943 (95% CI 0.877-0.980), all of which were larger than AUC of HE4 (0.889) (95% CI 0.810-0.944), and the differences were statistically significant (P values were 0.029, 0.014, 0.015). Conclusions:The diagnostic efficacy of CPH-I and ROMA for ovarian cancer is comparable, and regardless of menopause or not, the diagnostic efficacy of CPH-I and ROMA is higher. The diagnostic efficacy of CPH-I and ROMA for ovarian cancer is better than that of CA125 and HE4 in overall patients, the diagnostic efficacy of CA125 is the lowest in premenopausal patients, and the diagnostic efficacy of HE4 is the lowest in postmenopausal patients.