ArticleBiomedical reports2017
Diagnostic value of urinary-to-serum human epididymis protein 4 ratio in ovarian cancer.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urinary biomarkers for the detection of ovarian cancer: a systematic review.Carcinogenesis · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic Value of Serum sST2 and MicroRNA-29a in Ovarian Cancer: A Dual-Biomarker Pilot Study.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic role of urine human epididymis protein 4 in ovarian cancer.Biochemia medica · 2024Review
- Urinary-based detection of MSL, HE4 and CA125 as an additional dimension for predictive and prognostic modelling in ovarian cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- An SPRi Biosensor for Determination of the Ovarian Cancer Marker HE4 in Human Plasma.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Altered glycosylation in cancer: A promising target for biomarkers and therapeutics.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is one of the best-known tumor markers for ovarian cancer (OC). Emerging evidence indicates that the evaluation of serum HE4 (S-HE4) levels may be problematic when patients have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Assaying urine for HE4 levels is non-invasive alternative for the diagnosis of OC. However, whether the combined detection of S- and urinary HE4 (U-HE4) levels distinguishes OC from CKD remains unknown. To investigate this issue, the present study recruited 31 female patients with OC, 38 female patients with CKD, and 36 healthy control (HC) females. Serum and urine samples were preoperatively collected for HE4 level detection. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to assess the diagnostic performance of S-HE4 level, U-HE4 level and the ratio of urinary-to-serum HE4 level (R-HE4). Data from the current study indicated that serum HE4 levels in the OC and CKD groups were significantly higher than that in the HC group. The U-HE4 level in the OC group was significantly higher than that in the CKD and HC groups. The highest R-HE4 was observed in the HC group, followed by the OC group, and the lowest R-HE4 was observed in the CKD group. ROC analysis demonstrated that the R-HE4 was useful in differentiating OC from CKD and HC. Based on the diagnostic interval of optimal cut-off values from 36.85 to 96.15, the sensitivity and specificity of R-HE4 in differentiating OC patients from non-OC patients were 82.6 and 85.4%, respectively. Thus, the combined detection of S- and U-HE4 levels facilitates the diagnosis of OC, and R-HE4 is an effective marker for differentiating OC from CKD.
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.