ArticleDisease markers2019
CPH-I and HE4 Are More Favorable Than CA125 in Differentiating Borderline Ovarian Tumors from Epithelial Ovarian Cancer at Early Stages.
Article in Disease markers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of a multimodal approach combining inflammatory biomarkers, tumor markers, and ultrasonographic features for borderline ovarian epithelial tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performances of the Ovarian Adnexal Reporting and Data System, the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, and the Copenhagen Index in the preoperative prediction of ovarian cancer: a prospective cohort study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- The Predictive Value of NLR, PLR, LMR, NPAR and D-Dimer on the Efficacy and Prognosis of First-Line Immunotherapy for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Advances in understanding the molecular mechanisms of borderline ovarian tumors.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Review
- Clinicopathological characteristics, molecular features and novel diagnostic strategies for the detection of malignant transformation of endometriosis (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Review
- Performance of IOTA Simple Rules Risks, ADNEX Model, Subjective Assessment Compared to CA125 and HE4 with ROMA Algorithm in Discriminating between Benign, Borderline and Stage I Malignant Adnexal Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Current and Emerging Methods for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- The Comparison of Three Predictive Indexes to Discriminate Malignant Ovarian Tumors from Benign Ovarian Endometrioma: The Characteristics and Efficacy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Copenhagen index (CPH-I) is more favorable than CA125, HE4, and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA): Nomogram prediction models with clinical-ultrasonographic feature for diagnosing ovarian neoplasms.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the diagnosis value of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), and Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) at early stages for differentiating borderline ovarian tumors from epithelial ovarian cancer.
methodsWe recruited 144 borderline ovarian tumors in FIGO stages I and II (BOT I+II), 108 epithelial ovarian cancers in FIGO stages I and II (EOC I+II), and 238 benign ovarian tumor patients with surgical treatment in the retrospective study. The concentration of HE4 and CA125 and the values of CPH-I and ROMA were assessed separately.
resultsThe HE4 level and ROMA and CPH-I values of EOC I+II were all higher than that of BOT I+II and benign groups whether in all, pre-, or postmenopausal groups (
conclusionCPH-I was more valuable than CA125 for differentiating BOT I+II from EOC I+II regardless of menopausal status, while HE4 might be better than CA125 for postmenopausal subgroups. HE4 and CPH-I were more favorable than CA125 for differentiating BOT I+II from EOC I+II in the case of unknown pathology or in serous type.
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.