Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34453074›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2021

Diagnostic measures comparison for ovarian malignancy risk in Epithelial ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis.

Arpita Suri, Vanamail Perumal, Prajwal Ammalli, Varsha Suryan, Sanjiv Kumar Bansal

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic value ofFrontiers in oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Exhausted and Senescent CD4Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Diagnostic biomarkers in ovarian cancer: advances beyond CA125 and HE4.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arpita SuriDepartment of Biochemistry, SGT Medical College Hospital and Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, 122505, India.
Vanamail PerumalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. pvanamail@gmail.com.
Prajwal AmmalliDepartment of Biochemistry, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D1 ILBS Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Delhi, 110070, India.
Varsha SuryanDepartment of Biochemistry, SGT Medical College Hospital and Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, 122505, India.
Sanjiv Kumar BansalDepartment of Biochemistry, SGT Medical College Hospital and Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, 122505, India.
Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INInstitute of Liver and Biliary Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epithelial ovarian cancer has become the most frequent cause of deaths among gynecologic malignancies. Our study elucidates the diagnostic performance of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), Human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) and cancer antigen (CA125). To compare the diagnostic accuracy of ROMA, HE-4 and CA125 in the early diagnosis and screening of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Literature search in electronic databases such as Medicine: MEDLINE (through PUBMED interface), EMBASE, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Cochrane library from January 2011 to August 2020. Studies that evaluated the diagnostic measures of ROMA, HE4 and CA125 by using Chemilumincence immunoassay or electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA or ECLIA) as index tests. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). We included 32 studies in our meta-analysis. We calculated AUC by SROC, pooled estimated like sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), Tau square, Cochran Q through random effect analysis and meta-regression. Data was retrieved from 32 studies. The number of studies included for HE4, CA125 and ROMA tests was 25, 26 and 22 respectively. The patients with EOC were taken as cases, and women with benign ovarian mass were taken as control, which was 2233/5682, 2315/5875 and 2281/5068 respectively for the markers or algorithm. The pooled estimates of the markers or algorithm were sensitivity: ROMA (postmenopausal) (0.88, 95% CI 0.86-0.89) > ROMA (premenopausal) 0.80, 95% CI 0.78-0.83 > CA-125(0.84, 95% CI 0.82-0.85) > HE4 (0.73, 95% CI 0.71-0.75) specificity: HE4 (0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91) > ROMA (postmenopausal) (0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.84) > ROMA (premenopausal) (0.80, 95% CI 0.79-0.82) > CA125 (0.73, 95%CI 0.72-0.74), Diagnostic odd's ratio ROMA (postmenopausal) 44.04, 95% CI 31.27-62.03, ROMA (premenopausal)-18.93, 95% CI 13.04-27.48, CA-125-13.44, 95% CI 9.97-18.13, HE4-41.03, 95% CI 27.96-60.21 AUC(SE): ROMA (postmenopausal) 0.94(0.01), ROMA (premenopausal)-0.88(0.01), HE4 0.91(0.01), CA125-0.86(0.02) through bivariate random effects model considering the heterogeneity. Our study found ROMA as the best marker to differentiate EOC from benign ovarian masses with greater diagnostic accuracy as compared to HE4 and CA125 in postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women, HE4 is a promising predictor of Epithelial ovarian cancer; however, its utilisation requires further exploration. Our study elucidates the diagnostic performance of ROMA, HE4 and CA125 in EOC. ROMA is a promising diagnostic marker of Epithelial ovarian cancers in postmenopausal women, while HE4 is the best diagnostic predictor of EOC in the premenopausal group. Our study had only EOC patients as cases and those with benign ovarian masses as controls. Further, we considered the studies estimated using the markers by the same index test: CLIA or ECLIA. The good number of studies with strict inclusion criteria reduced bias because of the pooling of studies with different analytical methods, especially for HE4. We did not consider the studies published in foreign languages. Since a few studies were available for HE4 and CA125 in the premenopausal and postmenopausal group separately, data were inadequate for sub-group analysis. Further, we did not assess these markers' diagnostic efficiency stratified by the stage and type of tumour due to insufficient studies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialDatabases, FactualData ManagementFemaleHumansLuminescenceMembrane ProteinsMiddle AgedOdds RatioOvarian NeoplasmsOvaryPremenopausePrognosisBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenMembrane ProteinsMUC16 protein, humanWAP Four-Disulfide Core Domain Protein 2WFDC2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID34453074
PMCPMC8397730
OpenAlexW3194854949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.