ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2014
Comparison of serum human epididymis protein 4 and carbohydrate antigen 125 as markers in ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic values of osteopontin combined with CA125 for ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis.Familial cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Circulating Cell Free DNA as the Diagnostic Marker for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- BRCA2 N372H Polymorphism and Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis With 2344 Cases and 9672 Controls.Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid human epididymis protein 4 for leptomeningeal metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective cohort study.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Enhancing the anticancer effects of rosmarinic acid in PC3 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells using titanium oxide and selenium-doped graphene oxide nanoparticles.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of follow-up observation using human epididymis protein 4, a tumor marker, in patients with ovarian cancer.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
- Article
- Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors in Postmenopausal Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
- Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Role of Human Epididymis Protein 4 in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Diseases: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Toward improvement of screening through mass spectrometry-based proteomics: ovarian cancer as a case study.International journal of mass spectrometry · 2021Article
- Biomarkers in Ovarian Pathology: From Screening to Diagnosis. Review of the Literature.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Clinical analysis of 52 adolescent patients with ovarian masses ≥10 cm in diameter.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Serum Human Epididymis Protein-4 (HE4) - A novel Approach to Differentiate Malignant Frombenign Breast Tumors.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Correlation analysis and clinical significance of CA125, HE4, DDI, and FDP in type II epithelial ovarian cancer.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses: A meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Prediction of the treatment response in ovarian cancer: a ctDNA approach.Journal of ovarian research · 2020Review
- Efficacy of HE4, CA125, Risk of Malignancy Index and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Index to Detect Ovarian Cancer in Women with Presumed Benign Ovarian Tumours: A Prospective, Multicentre Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ovarian cancer (OC) is the third most common type of gynecological cancer. Measurements of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) levels have been suggested for improving the specificity of the laboratory identification of OC. For this meta-analysis, the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies. All the included studies for diagnostic performance were combined with sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and areas under the SROC curves (AUC). A total of 25 studies including 4,729 patients were identified as eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivities and respective 95% CIs for HE4 and carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) were 0.74 (0.72-0.76) and 0.74 (0.72-0.76), respectively. The pooled specificities and respective 95% CIs for HE4 and CA125 were 0.90 (0.89-0.91) and 0.83 (0.81-0.84), respectively. The summary DORs and 95% CIs for HE4 and CA125 were 43.35 (29.13-64.51) and 17.06 (10.97-26.51), respectively and the AUCs for HE4 and CA125 were 0.8915 and 0.8538, respectively. In total, 9 studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of HE4 combined with CA125 for the diagnosis of OC. The pooled sensitivity and 95% CIs of HE4, CA125 and HE4+CA125 in this subgroup were 0.71 (0.67-0.75), 0.74 (0.69-0.78) and 0.90 (0.87-0.92), respectively; the pooled specificity and 95% CIs of HE4, CA125 and HE4+CA125 were 0.92 (0.90-0.94), 0.73 (0.69-0.76) and 0.85 (0.82-0.87), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of HE4 in distinguishing OC from other benign gynecological diseases was found to be to be superior to that of CA125 and the combination of HE4 and CA125 may enhance the diagnostic sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.