Human epididymis protein 4 antigen-autoantibody complexes complement cancer antigen 125 for detecting early-stage ovarian cancer

Background: Early detection of ovarian cancer could significantly improve patient outcomes. Cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) is elevated in sera from approximately 60% of patients with early‐stage (I/II) disease. Sensitivity might be improved through the combination of CA 125 with other biomarkers. Among potential biomarkers, antigen‐autoantibody (Ag‐AAb) complexes have received relatively little attention. / Methods: Luminex‐based immunoassays were used to measure human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), anti‐HE4 autoantibody, and HE4 Ag‐AAb complexes in sera from patients with early‐ (n = 73) and late‐stage ovarian cancers (n = 49) at the time of diagnosis and from asymptomatic women with (n = 15) or without ovarian cancer (n = 212) enrolled in the Normal Risk Ovarian Cancer Screening Study. / Results: At 98% specificity for healthy, asymptomatic women, 7% of patients with early‐stage (I/II) ovarian cancer and 4% of patients with late‐stage (III/IV) disease had elevated levels of HE4 autoantibody, whereas elevated levels of HE4 Ag‐AAb complexes were detected in sera from 38% of early‐stage cases and 31% of late‐stage cases. Complementarity was observed in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves between HE4 Ag‐AAb complexes and CA 125 levels in early‐stage ovarian cancer (P < .001). CA 125 detected 63% of cases, and a combination of CA 125 and HE4 Ag‐AAb complexes detected 81%. Complementarity was also observed in ROC curves for an independent validation set with 69 early‐stage patients (P = .039). HE4 Ag‐AAb complexes were detected in serial preclinical serum samples from women destined to develop ovarian cancer: they correlated with CA 125 but did not provide a lead time. / Conclusions: HE4 Ag‐AAb complexes could complement CA 125 in detecting a higher fraction of early‐stage ovarian cancers

Ovarian cancer symptoms in pre-clinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer - An exploratory analysis nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

OBJECTIVE: UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers. METHODS: In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50-74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. RESULTS: 1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Multivariate Index Assay for Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND: Most women with a clinical presentation consistent with ovarian cancer have benign conditions. Therefore methods to distinguish women with ovarian cancer from those with benign conditions would be beneficial. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of a serum-based multivariate assay for ovarian cancer. This hypothesis-driven study examined whether an informative pattern could be detected in stage I disease that persists through later stages. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sera, collected under uniform protocols from multiple institutions, representing 176 cases and 187 controls from women presenting for surgery were examined using high-throughput, multiplexed immunoassays. All stages and common subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer, and the most common benign ovarian conditions were represented. A panel of 104 antigens, 44 autoimmune and 56 infectious disease markers were assayed and informative combinations identified. Using a training set of 91 stage I data sets, representing 61 individual samples, and an equivalent number of controls, an 11-analyte profile, composed of CA-125, CA 19-9, EGF-R, C-reactive protein, myoglobin, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein CIII, MIP-1alpha, IL-6, IL-18 and tenascin C was identified and appears informative for all stages and common subtypes of ovarian cancer. Using a testing set of 245 samples, approximately twice the size of the model building set, the classifier had 91.3% sensitivity and 88.5% specificity. While these preliminary results are promising, further refinement and extensive validation of the classifier in a clinical trial is necessary to determine if the test has clinical value. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We describe a blood-based assay using 11 analytes that can distinguish women with ovarian cancer from those with benign conditions. Preliminary evaluation of the classifier suggests it has the potential to offer approximately 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity. While promising, the performance needs to be assessed in a blinded clinical validation study

Tumour stage, treatment, and survival of women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer in UKCTOCS: an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy. METHODS: UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50-74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. FINDINGS: 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04-13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4-13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6-26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5-17·4]). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, The Eve Appeal

Comparison of Longitudinal CA125 Algorithms as a First-Line Screen for Ovarian Cancer in the General Population

Purpose: In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening(UKCTOCS) women in the multimodal (MMS) arm had a serum CA125 test (first-line), with those at increased risk, having repeat CA125/ultrasound (second-line test). CA125 was interpreted using the 'Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm'(ROCA). We report on performance of other serial algorithms and a single CA125 threshold as a first line screen in the UKCTOCS dataset. // Experimental Design: 50,083 post-menopausal women who attended 346,806 MMS screens were randomly split into training and validation sets, following stratification into cases (ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers) and controls. The two longitudinal algorithms, a new serial algorithm, method of mean trends (MMT) and the parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) were trained in the training set and tested in the blinded validation set and the performance characteristics, including that of a single CA125 threshold, were compared. // Results The area under receiver operator curve (AUC) was significantly higher (p=0.01) for MMT (0.921) compared to CA125 single threshold (0.884). At a specificity of 89.5%, sensitivities for MMT (86.5%;95%CI:78.4-91.9) and PEB (88.5%;95%CI:80.6-93.4) were similar to that reported for ROCA (sensitivity 87.1%; specificity 87.6%; AUC 0.915) and significantly higher than the single CA125 threshold (73.1%;95%CI:63.6-80.8). // Conclusions: These findings from the largest available serial CA125 data set in the general population provide definitive evidence that longitudinal algorithms are significantly superior to simple cut-offs for ovarian cancer screening. Use of these newer algorithms requires incorporation into a multimodal strategy. The results highlight the importance of incorporating serial change in biomarker levels in cancer screening/early detection strategies

Comprehensive Serum Profiling for the Discovery of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers

FDA-cleared ovarian cancer biomarkers are limited to CA-125 and HE4 for monitoring and recurrence and OVA1, a multivariate panel consisting of CA-125 and four additional biomarkers, for referring patients to a specialist. Due to relatively poor performance of these tests, more accurate and broadly applicable biomarkers are needed. We evaluated the dysregulation of 259 candidate cancer markers in serum samples from 499 patients. Sera were collected prospectively at 11 monitored sites under a single well-defined protocol. All stages of ovarian cancer and common benign gynecological conditions were represented. To ensure consistency and comparability of biomarker comparisons, all measurements were performed on a single platform, at a single site, using a panel of rigorously calibrated, qualified, high-throughput, multiplexed immunoassays and all analyses were conducted using the same software. Each marker was evaluated independently for its ability to differentiate ovarian cancer from benign conditions. A total of 175 markers were dysregulated in the cancer samples. HE4 (AUC = 0.933) and CA-125 (AUC = 0.907) were the most informative biomarkers, followed by IL-2 receptor α, α1-antitrypsin, C-reactive protein, YKL-40, cellular fibronectin, CA-72-4 and prostasin (AUC>0.800). To improve the discrimination between cancer and benign conditions, a simple multivariate combination of markers was explored using logistic regression. When combined into a single panel, the nine most informative individual biomarkers yielded an AUC value of 0.950, significantly higher than obtained when combining the markers in the OVA1 panel (AUC 0.912). Additionally, at a threshold sensitivity of 90%, the combination of the top 9 markers gave 88.9% specificity compared to 63.4% specificity for the OVA1 markers. Although a blinded validation study has not yet been performed, these results indicate that alternative biomarker combinations might lead to significant improvements in the detection of ovarian cancer

Elevation of TP53 Autoantibody Prior to CA125 in Preclinical Invasive Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Purpose: The TP53 tumor suppressor gene is mutated in >95% of high grade serous ovarian cancers. Detecting an autologous antibody response to TP53 might improve early detection. Experimental design: An immunoassay was developed to measure TP53 autoantibody in sera from 378 cases of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and in 944 age-matched healthy controls from the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. Serial preclinical samples from cases and controls were also assayed from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Results: Using a cut-off of 78 U/mL to achieve a specificity of 97.4%, TP53 autoantibody were elevated in 30% of 50 cases from MD Anderson, 21.3% of 108 cases from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study and 21% of 220 cases from the UKCTOCS. Among 164 cases with rising CA125 detected with the UKCTOCS risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA), 20.7% had elevated TP53 autoantibody. In cases missed by the ROCA, 16% of cases had elevated TP53 autoantibody. Of the 34 ovarian cancer cases detected with the ROCA, TP53 autoantibody titers were elevated 11.0 months prior to CA125. In the 9 cases missed by the ROCA, TP53 autoantibody was elevated 22.9 months before cancer diagnosis. Similar sensitivity was obtained using assays with specific mutant and wild-type TP53. Conclusion: TP53 autoantibody levels provide a biomarker with clinically significant lead time over elevation of CA125 or an elevated ROCA value. Quantitative assessment of autoantibodies in combination with CA125 hold promise for earlier detection of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer

Randomised study of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer macroscopically confined to the pelvis

No randomised trials have addressed the value of systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy (SL) in ovarian cancer macroscopically confined to the pelvis. This study was conducted to investigate the role of SL compared with lymph nodes sampling (CONTROL) in the management of early stage ovarian cancer. A total of 268 eligible patients with macroscopically intrapelvic ovarian carcinoma were randomised to SL (N=138) or CONTROL (N=130). The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with retroperitoneal nodal involvement between the two groups. Median operating time was longer and more patients required blood transfusions in the SL arm than the CONTROL arm (240 vs 150 min, P<0.001, and 36 vs 22%, P=0.012, respectively). More patients in the SL group had positive nodes at histologic examination than patients on CONTROL (9 vs 22%, P=0.007). Postoperative chemotherapy was delivered in 66% and 51% of patients with negative nodes on CONTROL and SL, respectively (P=0.03). At a median follow-up of 87.8 months, the adjusted risks for progression (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72, 95%CI=0.46–1.21, P=0.16) and death (HR=0.85, 95%CI=0.49–1.47, P=0.56) were lower, but not statistically significant, in the SL than the CONTROL arm. Five-year progression-free survival was 71.3 and 78.3% (difference=7.0%, 95% CI=–3.4–14.3%) and 5-year overall survival was 81.3 and 84.2% (difference=2.9%, 95% CI=−7.0–9.2%) respectively for CONTROL and SL. SL detects a higher proportion of patients with metastatic lymph nodes. This trial may have lacked power to exclude clinically important effects of SL on progression free and overall survival

Effects of Blood Collection Conditions on Ovarian Cancer Serum Markers

Evaluating diagnostic and early detection biomarkers requires comparing serum protein concentrations among biosamples ascertained from subjects with and without cancer. Efforts are generally made to standardize blood processing and storage conditions for cases and controls, but blood sample collection conditions cannot be completely controlled. For example, blood samples from cases are often obtained from persons aware of their diagnoses, and collected after fasting or in surgery, whereas blood samples from some controls may be obtained in different conditions, such as a clinic visit. By measuring the effects of differences in collection conditions on three different markers, we investigated the potential of these effects to bias validation studies.We analyzed serum concentrations of three previously studied putative ovarian cancer serum biomarkers-CA 125, Prolactin and MIF-in healthy women, women with ovarian cancer undergoing gynecologic surgery, women undergoing surgery for benign ovary pathology, and women undergoing surgery with pathologically normal ovaries. For women undergoing surgery, a blood sample was collected either in the clinic 1 to 39 days prior to surgery, or on the day of surgery after anesthesia was administered but prior to the surgical procedure, or both. We found that one marker, prolactin, was dramatically affected by collection conditions, while CA 125 and MIF were unaffected. Prolactin levels were not different between case and control groups after accounting for the conditions of sample collection, suggesting that sample ascertainment could explain some or all of the previously reported results about its potential as a biomarker for ovarian cancer.Biomarker validation studies should use standardized collection conditions, use multiple control groups, and/or collect samples from cases prior to influence of diagnosis whenever feasible to detect and correct for potential biases associated with sample collection