ArticleNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University2019
[Comparison of serum cancer antigen 125, human epididymis protein 4, ROMA, and CPH-I for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in Chinese patients with ovarian mass].
Article in Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) index in the detection of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic measures comparison for ovarian malignancy risk in Epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Preoperative differentiation of borderline and malignant ovarian tumors using interpretable machine learning.Journal of ovarian research · 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
- Human epididymis protein 4, a novel potential biomarker for diagnostic and prognosis monitoring of lung cancer.The clinical respiratory journal · 2024Article
- CT-Based Radiomics and Machine Learning for Differentiating Benign, Borderline, and Early-Stage Malignant Ovarian Tumors.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- 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
- Early diagonosis of ovarian cancer: serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA model.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- A Novel Classifier Based on Urinary Proteomics for Distinguishing Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen index (CPH-I) for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases in patients with ovarian mass.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of 719 women with pelvic mass, and the performance of preoperative serum levels of CA125 and HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for differential diagnosis of the masses was compared.
resultsOf the 710 women analyzed, 531 were diagnosed with benign ovarian lesions, 44 with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs), 119 with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs), and 25 with non-EOCs. In differentiating ovarian cancer (OC) and BOT from benign lesions, the area under the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.854 for HE4, 0.856 for ROMA, 0.854 for CPH-I, and 0.792 for CA125, demonstrating better diagnostic performance of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I than CA125 alone; the diagnostic sensitivity was 56.9% for HE4, 70.2% for CA125, 69.1% for ROMA, and 63.8% for CPH-I; the specificity was the best with HE4 (94.4%) and CPH-I (94.7%). In sub-analysis of EOC
conclusionsThis study confirms the accuracy of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I for differentiating malignant from benign ovarian mass, and all these 3 tests show better performance than CA125. Furthermore, HE4 and CPH-I is superior to ROMA and CA125 in terms of specificity, while CA125 and ROMA have better diagnostic sensitivities.
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.