ArticleBalkan medical journal2017
The Use of Human Epididymis 4 and Cancer Antigen 125 Tumor Markers in the Benign or Malignant Differential Diagnosis of Pelvic or Adnexal Masses.
Article in Balkan medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of a Multimodal Biomarker Panel and Serum Proapoptotic Activity to Refine Diagnosis of Ovarian Adnexal Masses.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Perioperative management of a patient with unexpectedly detected early-stage ovarian mucinous carcinoma combined with progressive bulbar paralysis: a case report and literature review.BMC women's health · 2024Review
- Tumor Markers in Differential Diagnosis of Benign Ovarian Masses.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic Surgery in Large Ovarian Masses.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOvarian cancer is one of the highest mortality cancers in gynaecology. Discrimination of benign masses from malignant ones may sometimes become a challenge for the clinician since there is not a reliable tumour marker, thus some unnecessary, highly morbid operations can be performed.
aimsTo explore the efficacy of human epididymis 4 (HE 4) and cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) markers in differentiating malignant and benign pelvic masses of ovarian origin and to identify the cut-off points for those markers. STUDY
designProspective study.
methodsFifty-one patients who were diagnosed and planned to undergo surgery for ovarian mass between June 2008 and December 2008 were enrolled into this study. Preoperative venous blood samples were taken and frozen for marker investigation and final diagnoses were concluded by histopathological examination. After recruitment of all cases CA 125 and HE 4 levels were evaluated.
resultsThe statistical analysis did not indicate any statistically significant difference between the CA 125 levels of the patients with malignant and benign adnexal masses (p=0.105). The HE 4 levels of the patients with malignant adnexal masses were higher at a statistically significant level compared to the patients with benign adnexal masses (p=0.002). For HE 4 tumour marker and at the cut-off point of >25 pM, sensitivity was 1, specificity 0.40, positive cut-off value 0.19, negative cut-off value 1, accuracy 0.47 and positive likelihood ratio 1.65.
conclusionHuman epididymis 4 is a better diagnostic tool than CA 125 in benign-malignant discrimination of adnexal masses. The cut-off value of 25 pmol/L for human epididymis 4 will contribute to providing proper guidance to patients with adnexal masses and applying the proper treatment method.
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.