Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomarker Testing for Ovarian Cancer: Clinical Utility of Multiplex Assays

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The improved detection of ovarian cancer at the earliest stages of development would confer a significant benefit in the therapeutic efficacy and overall survival associated with this devastating disease. The inadequate performance of currently used imaging modalities and the CA 125 biomarker test have precluded the establishment of screening programs and hindered the development of diagnostic tests for ovarian cancer. Two recently completed large clinical trials of ovarian cancer screening have reported findings of mixed impact, further clouding the issue. Considerable effort has been applied to the development of multiplexed biomarker-based tests and the most recent advances are discussed here. Within the clinical setting of pelvic mass differential diagnosis and triage, several significant advancements have been achieved recently, including the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm and OVA1 tests. The development and evaluation of those tests are described in this review. Thus while effective routine screening for ovarian cancer remains a lofty goal, advancement within the clinical management of pelvic mass diagnoses appears to be near at hand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yoshida H, Ishiko O, Sumi T, Matsumoto Y, Ogita S. Survivin, bcl-2 and matrix metalloproteinase-2 enhance progression of clear cell- and serous-type ovarian carcinomas. Int J Oncol. 2001;19:537–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2007. National Cancer Institute; 2010.

  3. Holschneider CH, Berek JS. Ovarian cancer: epidemiology, biology, and prognostic factors. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;19:3–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker TR, Piver MS. Etiology, biology, and epidemiology of ovarian cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1994;10:242–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Menon U. Ovarian cancer screening. CMAJ. 2004;171:323–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Urban N, McIntosh MW, Andersen M, Karlan BY. Ovarian cancer screening. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2003;17:989–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Calogne N. Screening for ovarian cancer: recommendation statement. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:260–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moyer VA, US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for ovarian cancer: recommendation statement. US Preventive Services Task Force. Am Fam Physician 2005;71:759–62.

    Google Scholar 

  9. ACOG Committee Opinion. Role of loop electrosurgical excision procedure in the evaluation of abnormal Pap test results. Number 195, November 1997. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1998;61:203–4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown DL, Andreotti RF, Lee SI, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria© ovarian cancer screening. Ultrasound Q. 2010;26:219–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Partridge E, Kreimer AR, Greenlee RT, et al. Results from four rounds of ovarian cancer screening in a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:775–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2011;305:2295–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:327–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Menon U, Skates SJ, Lewis S, et al. Prospective study using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm to screen for ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7919–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Skates SJ. Ovarian cancer screening: development of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) and ROCA screening trials. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(Suppl 1):S24–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Drescher CW, Hawley S, Thorpe JD, et al. Impact of screening test performance and cost on mortality reduction and cost-effectiveness of multimodal ovarian cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012;5:1015–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pinsky PF, Zhu C, Skates SJ, et al. Potential effect of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) on the mortality outcome of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trial. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:2127–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mor G, Visintin I, Lai Y, et al. Serum protein markers for early detection of ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:7677–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Visintin I, Feng Z, Longton G, et al. Diagnostic markers for early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1065–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Greene MH, Feng Z, Gail MH. The importance of test positive predictive value in ovarian cancer screening. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:7574 (author reply 7577–9).

    Google Scholar 

  21. McIntosh M, Anderson G, Drescher C, et al. Ovarian cancer early detection claims are biased. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:7574 (author reply 7577–9).

  22. Yurkovetsky Z, Skates S, Lomakin A, et al. Development of a multimarker assay for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2159–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim YW, Bae SM, Lim H, Kim YJ, Ahn WS. Development of multiplexed bead-based immunoassays for the detection of early stage ovarian cancer using a combination of serum biomarkers. PLoS One. 2012;7:e44960.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Z, Bast RC Jr, Yu Y, et al. Three biomarkers identified from serum proteomic analysis for the detection of early stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2004;64:5882–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Su F, Lang J, Kumar A, et al. Validation of candidate serum ovarian cancer biomarkers for early detection. Biomark Insights. 2007;2:369–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Skates SJ, Horick N, Yu Y, et al. Preoperative sensitivity and specificity for early-stage ovarian cancer when combining cancer antigen CA 125II, CA 15-3, CA 72-4, and macrophage colony-stimulating factor using mixtures of multivariate normal distributions. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4059–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Edgell T, Martin-Roussety G, Barker G, et al. Phase II biomarker trial of a multimarker diagnostic for ovarian cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136:1079–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Amonkar SD, Bertenshaw GP, Chen TH, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of a multivariate index assay for ovarian cancer. PLoS One. 2009;4:e4599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Palmer C, Duan X, Hawley S, et al. Systematic evaluation of candidate blood markers for detecting ovarian cancer. PLoS One. 2008;3:e2633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anderson GL, McIntosh M, Wu L, et al. Assessing lead time of selected ovarian cancer biomarkers: a nested case–control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:26–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Andersen MR, Goff BA, Lowe KA, et al. Use of a Symptom Index, CA125, and HE4 to predict ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:378–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Disaia PJ, Creasman WT. The adnexal mass and early ovarian cancer. In: Clinical gynecological oncology. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1997. p. 253–81.

  33. Tingulstad S, Skjeldestad FE, Hagen B. The effect of centralization of primary surgery on survival in ovarian cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:499–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1248–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, Nalick RH, Wang HJ. The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47:203–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dearking AC, Aletti GD, McGree ME, Weaver AL, Sommerfield MK, Cliby WA. How relevant are ACOG and SGO guidelines for referral of adnexal mass? Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:841–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, et al. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:402–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:40–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Drapkin R, von Horsten HH, Lin Y, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is overexpressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res. 2005;65:2162–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Abdel-Azeez HA, Labib HA, Sharaf SM, Refai AN. HE4 and mesothelin: novel biomarkers of ovarian carcinoma in patients with pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11:111–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chang X, Ye X, Dong L, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as a serum tumor biomarker in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:852–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Holcomb K, Vucetic Z, Miller MC, Knapp RC. Human epididymis protein 4 offers superior specificity in the differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses in premenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Huhtinen K, Suvitie P, Hiissa J, et al. Serum HE4 concentration differentiates malignant ovarian tumours from ovarian endometriotic cysts. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:1315–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim YM, Whang DH, Park J, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of serum human epididymis protein 4 in combination with CA125 for detecting ovarian cancer: a prospective case–control study in a Korean population. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011;49:527–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Nolen B, Velikokhatnaya L, Marrangoni A, et al. Serum biomarker panels for the discrimination of benign from malignant cases in patients with an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;117:440–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Moore RG, Miller MC, Disilvestro P, et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with a pelvic mass. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:280–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bandiera E, Romani C, Specchia C, et al. Serum human epididymis protein 4 and risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm as new diagnostic and prognostic tools for epithelial ovarian cancer management. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:2496–506.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Chan KK, Chen CA, Nam JH, et al. The use of HE4 in the prediction of ovarian cancer in Asian women with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:239–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Novotny Z, Presl J, Kucera R, et al. HE4 and ROMA index in Czech postmenopausal women. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:4137–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sandri MT, Bottari F, Franchi D, et al. Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass: correlation with pathological outcome. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:233–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Kadija S, Stefanovic A, Jeremic K, et al. The utility of human epididymal protein 4, cancer antigen 125, and risk for malignancy algorithm in ovarian cancer and endometriosis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:238–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ruggeri G, Bandiera E, Zanotti L, et al. HE4 and epithelial ovarian cancer: comparison and clinical evaluation of two immunoassays and a combination algorithm. Clin Chim Acta. 2011;412:1447–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E, et al. HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:863–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Montagnana M, Danese E, Ruzzenente O, et al. The ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) for estimating the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women presenting with pelvic mass: is it really useful? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011;49:521–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Jacob F, Meier M, Caduff R, et al. No benefit from combining HE4 and CA125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:487–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Moore RG, Jabre-Raughley M, Brown AK, et al. Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay vs the Risk of Malignancy Index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:228 e1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B, et al. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Vinken P, Starckx S, Barale-Thomas E, et al. Tissue Kim-1 and urinary clusterin as early indicators of cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury in rats. Toxicol Pathol. 2012;40:1049–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Zhang Z, Chan DW. The road from discovery to clinical diagnostics: lessons learned from the first FDA-cleared in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assay of proteomic biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2995–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Miller R, Smith A, DeSimone CP, et al. Performance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ ovarian tumor referral guidelines with a multivariate index assay. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:1298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ueland FR, Desimone CP, Seamon LG, et al. Effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in the preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:1289–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Moore LE, Pfeiffer RM, Zhang Z, Lu KH, Fung ET, Bast RC Jr. Proteomic biomarkers in combination with CA 125 for detection of epithelial ovarian cancer using prediagnostic serum samples from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Cancer. 2012;118:91–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Cramer DW, Bast RC Jr, Berg CD, et al. Ovarian cancer biomarker performance in prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial specimens. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4:365–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Karlsen MA, Sandhu N, Hogdall C, et al. Evaluation of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) as diagnostic tools of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecological Oncology. 2012;127(2):379–83.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NIH grants: U01CA117452 (EDRN), RO1 570 CA098642, R01 CA108990, P50 CA083639, CA086381, CA105009, UPCI Hillman 571 Fellows Award, and The Frieda G. and Saul F. Shapira BRCA Cancer Research 572 Program Award (AEL). The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Hillman Cancer Center, 5117 Centre Avenue 1.18, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Brian M. Nolen & Anna E. Lokshin

  2. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 1218 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Anna E. Lokshin

  3. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, S-417 BST, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA

    Anna E. Lokshin

  4. Department of Ob/Gyn, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Anna E. Lokshin

Authors
  1. Brian M. Nolen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna E. Lokshin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian M. Nolen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nolen, B.M., Lokshin, A.E. Biomarker Testing for Ovarian Cancer: Clinical Utility of Multiplex Assays. Mol Diagn Ther 17, 139–146 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-013-0027-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-013-0027-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation