The diagnostic accuracy of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) for discriminating between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Many women with benign pelvic masses, suspected of ovarian cancer, are unnecessarily referred for treatment at specialized centers. There is an unmet clinical need to improve diagnostic assessment in these patients. Our objective was to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of human epididymis protein (HE4) for diagnosing ovarian cancer and to compare the performance of HE4 with that of cancer antigen 125 (CA125). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Ovid and Scopus using search terms for "pelvic masses" and "HE4", to identify studies that evaluated HE4 for diagnosing malignant ovarian masses, in adult women presenting with a pelvic mass, suspected of ovarian cancer, and with diagnosis confirmed by histopathology. Screening, data extraction and Risk of Bias assessment with the QUADAS-2 tool were done independently by two authors. We performed a meta-analysis of the accuracy of HE4 and CA125 using a random-effects bivariate logit-normal model. A study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020158073). RESULTS: In the 17 eligible studies, which included 3404 patients, ovarian cancer prevalence ranged from 15% to 71%. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous. All studies seemed to have recruited patients in specialized settings. A meta-analysis of seven HE4 studies resulted in a mean sensitivity of 79.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.1%-83.8%) and a mean specificity of 84.1% (95% CI 79.6%-87.8%), for cut-off values of 67-72 pmol/L. Based on eight studies, the mean sensitivity of CA125 was 81.4% (95% CI 74.6%-86.2%) and the mean specificity was 56.8% (95% CI 47.9%-65.4%), at a cut-off of 35 U/ml. Given a 40% ovarian cancer prevalence, the positive predictive value (PPV) for HE4 would be 76.9% (71.9%-81.2%) vs 55.6% (50.2%-60.9%) for CA125. The negative predictive value (NPV) would be 85.9 (82.8%-88.6%) and 81.9% (76.2%-86.4%), respectively. At a 15% prevalence, the NPV would be 95.8% (95% CI 94.4%-96.7%) for HE4 and 94.4% (95% CI 92.3%-96.0%) for CA125. The PPV would be 46.9% (40.4%-53.4%) and 24.9% (21.1%-29.2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HE4 had higher specificity and similar sensitivity compared with CA125. At high prevalence, PPV was also higher for HE4, but at low prevalence, it had a similar NPV to CA125. The field would benefit from studies conducted in general settings.

Human epididymis protein 4 immunostaining of malignant ascites differentiates cancer of Müllerian origin from gastrointestinal cancer.

BACKGROUND: An accurate diagnosis of cancer of Müllerian origin is required before the initiation of treatment. An overlap in clinical presentation and cytological, histological, or imaging studies with other nongynecological tumors does occur. Therefore, immunocytochemistry markers are used to determine tumor origin. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is overexpressed in tissue of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). It has shown to be a sensitive and specific serum marker for EOC and to be of value for the differentiation between EOC and ovarian metastases of gastrointestinal origin. The objective of the current study was to evaluate HE4 immunocytochemistry in malignant ascites for differentiation between cancer of Müllerian origin, including EOC, and adenocarcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract. METHODS: Cytological specimens of 115 different adenocarcinomas (45 EOCs, 46 cases of gastric cancer, and 24 cases of colorectal cancer) were stained for HE4, paired box 8 (PAX8), and other specific markers. RESULTS: 91% of the ascites samples from patients with EOC stained for both HE4 and PAX8. The 4 samples without HE4 staining were a clear cell carcinoma, a low-grade serous adenocarcinoma, an undifferentiated adenocarcinoma, and a neuroendocrine carcinoma. All high-grade serous adenocarcinomas (n = 37, 100%) stained with HE4, compared with 94% that stained positively for PAX8. In cases of gastric or colorectal cancer, 25% and 21% of cases, respectively, stained positive for HE4. No PAX8 staining was observed in colorectal or gastric adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: HE4 staining in ascites is feasible and appears to have a high sensitivity for high-grade serous ovarian cancer. HE4 is a useful addition to the current panel of immunocytochemistry markers for the diagnosis of EOC and for differentiation with gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:197-204. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

A novel diagnostic index combining HE4, CA125 and age may improve triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer - An international multicenter study in women with an ovarian mass.

AIM: To develop and validate a biomarker-based index to optimize referral and diagnosis of patients with suspected ovarian cancer. Furthermore, to compare this new index with the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A training study, consisting of patients with benign ovarian disease (n=809) and ovarian cancer (n=246), was used to develop the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) utilizing the variables serum HE4, serum CA125 and patient age. Eight international studies provided the validation population; comprising 1060 patients with benign ovarian masses and 550 patients with ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Overall, 2665 patients were included. CPH-I was highly significant in discriminating benign from malignant ovarian disease. At the defined cut-off of 0.070 for CPH-I the sensitivity and specificity were 95.0% and 78.4% respectively in the training cohort and 82.0% and 88.4% in the validation cohort. Comparison of CPH-I, ROMA and RMI demonstrated area-under-curve (AUC) at 0.960, 0.954 and 0.959 respectively in the training study and 0.951, 0.953 and 0.935 respectively in the validation study. Using a sensitivity of 95.0%, the specificities for CPH-I, ROMA and RMI in the training cohort were 78.4%, 71.7% and 81.5% respectively, and in the validation cohort 67.3%, 70.7% and 69.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: All three indices perform well at the clinically relevant sensitivity of 95%, but CPH-I, unlike RMI and ROMA, is independent of ultrasound and menopausal status, and may provide a simple index to optimize referral of women with suspected ovarian cancer.