ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Tumors.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 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
- Prognostic value of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- CA125 as a Potential Biomarker in Non-Malignant Serous Effusions: Diagnostic and Prognostic Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Current and Emerging Strategies for Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Peptides for diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors in Postmenopausal Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Defining Models to Classify between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses Using Routine Laboratory Parameters.Cancers · 2022Article
- 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
- Biomarker-Based Models for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Mass: A Multicenter Validation Study.Cancers · 2022Article
- Perspectives on Ovarian Cancer 1809 to 2022 and Beyond.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1)
objectiveTo assess the performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA index and CPH-I index to preoperatively identify epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or metastatic cancer in the ovary (MCO). (2)
methodssingle center retrospective study, including women with a diagnosis of adnexal mass. We obtained the AUC, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for the diagnosis of EOC and MCO. Subgroup analysis for women harboring adnexal masses with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and Stage I EOC was performed. (3)
results1071 patients were included, 852 (79.6%) presented benign/borderline tumors and 219 (20.4%) presented EOC/MCO. AUC for HE4 was higher than for CA125 (0.91 vs. 0.87). No differences were seen between AUC of ROMA and CPH-I, but they were both higher than HE4 AUC. None of the tumor markers alone achieved a sensitivity of 90%; HE4 was highly specific (93.5%). ROMA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 84.6% respectively, while CPH-I showed a sensitivity of 91.1% with 79.2% specificity. For patients with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and with Stage I EOC, ROMA showed the best diagnostic performance (4)
conclusionsROMA and CPH-I perform better than tumor markers alone to identify patients harboring EOC or MCO. They can be helpful to assess the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses, especially in cases where ultrasonographic diagnosis is challenging (stage I EOC, inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features).
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.