Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers in the COVID-19 Era.

Ovarian Cancer (OC) diagnosis is entrusted to CA125 and HE4. Since the latter has been found increased in COVID-19 patients, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the influence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on OC biomarkers. HE4 values above the cut-off were observed in 65% of OC patients and in 48% of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients (not oncologic patients), whereas CA125 values above the cut-off were observed in 71% of OC patients and in 11% of SARS-CoV-2 patients. Hence, by dividing the HE4 levels into quartiles, we can state that altered levels of HE4 in COVID-19 patients were mostly detectable in quartile I (151-300 pmol/L), while altered levels in OC patients were mostly clustered in quartile III (>600, pmol/L). In light of these observations, in order to better discriminate women with ovarian cancer versus those with COVID-19, we established a possible HE4 cut-off of 328 pmol/L by means of a ROC curve. These results demonstrate that the reliability of HE4 as a biomarker in ovarian cancer remains unchanged, despite COVID-19 interference; moreover, it is important for a proper diagnosis that whether the patient has a recent history of SARS-CoV-2 infection is determined.

Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 assays for evaluation of natural viral infection.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic, required the development of different diagnostic tests. While reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) remains the first-line test of choice in acute infection diagnosis, anti-N antibodies serological assays provide a valuable tool to differentiate natural SARS-CoV-2 immunological response from that induced by vaccination, thus the goal of our study was to evaluate three serological tests agreement for these antibodies detection. METHODS: Three anti-N different tests were examined in 74 sera from patients referred or not COVID infection: immunochromatographic rapid test (Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device Abbott, Germany), ELISA kit (NovaLisa® SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM NovaTech Immunodiagnostic GmbH, Germany) and ECLIA immunoassay (Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Roche Diagnostics, Manheim, Germany). RESULTS: Qualitative comparison of the three analytical methods revealed a moderate agreement between ECLIA immunoassay and immunochromatographic rapid test (Cohen kappa coefficient κ = 0.564). Correlation analysis indicated weak positive correlation between total Ig (IgT) detected by ECLIA immunoassay and IgG by ELISA test (p < 0.0001), the analysis of ECLIA IgT and IgM ELISA detected, showed no statistical correlation. CONCLUSION: Comparison between of three analytical systems available for anti-N SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies showed a general agreement when compared to detect total and G class immunoglobulins, while doubtful or discordant results have been highlighted for IgT and IgM class. Anyway, all the tests examined provide reliable results to assess the serological status of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.