Diagnostic value of tumor markers combined with different imaging protocols for ovarian tumors

Background: To investigate the value of ultrasound Gynecological Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) classification and Ovarian Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) classifications combined with serum tumor markers for ovarian tumors. Methods: A total of 100 patients with ovarian adnexal tumors had serum tumor markers tested and O-RADS and GI-RADS classifications were used for diagnoses. This allowed for a comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of separate and combined diagnostic approaches. Results: Among the 100 patients, 62 benign masses and 38 malignant masses were identified. Clinical characteristics showed that age, irregular contour and the presence of ascites were significantly different between the benign and malignant groups. The diagnostic efficacy results showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of O-RADS combined with GI-RADS classification, human epididymal protein 4 (HE4) and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) were higher than other separate diagnosis and combined diagnosis schemes. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis also confirmed that this approach had better diagnostic efficacy for ovarian tumors. Conclusions: Serum tumor markers HE4, CA125 test, O-RADS classification and GI-RADS classifications provided high diagnostic value for detecting benign and malignant ovarian tumors. However, combining these classifications with HE4 and CA125 further enhanced diagnostic accuracy.

Ovarian benign and malignant tumors; O-RADS classification; GI-RADS classification; HE4; CA125; Diagnostic efficacy

[1] Xia T, Fang C, Chen Y. Advances in application of circulating tumor DNA in ovarian cancer. Functional & Integrative Genomics. 2023; 23: 250.

[2] Terp SK, Stoico MP, Dybkær K, Pedersen IS. Early diagnosis of ovarian cancer based on methylation profiles in peripheral blood cell-free DNA: a systematic review. Clinical Epigenetics. 2023; 15: 24.

[3] Zhang M, Cheng S, Jin Y, Zhao Y, Wang Y. Roles of CA125 in diagnosis, prediction, and oncogenesis of ovarian cancer. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Reviews on Cancer. 2021; 1875: 188503.

[4] Bizoń M, Awiżeń-Panufnik Z, Sawicki W. Comparison of interleukin-6 with other markers in diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2023; 13: 980.

[5] Engbersen MP, Van Driel W, Lambregts D, Lahaye M. The role of CT, PET-CT, and MRI in ovarian cancer. British Journal of Radiology. 2021; 94: 20210117.

[6] Nguyen PN, Nguyen VT. Endometrial thickness and uterine artery Doppler parameters as soft markers for prediction of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal bleeding women: a cross-sectional study at tertiary referral hospitals from Vietnam. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 2022; 65: 430–440.

[7] Nguyen PN, Nguyen VT. Additional value of Doppler ultrasound to B-mode ultrasound in assessing for uterine intracavitary pathologies among perimenopausal and postmenopausal bleeding women: a multicentre prospective observational study in Vietnam. Journal of Ultrasound. 2023; 26: 459–469.

[8] Alcázar JL, Rodriguez-Guzman L, Vara J, Amor F, Diaz L, Vaccaro H. Gynecologic imaging and reporting data system for classifying adnexal masses. Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023; 75: 69–79.

[9] Phillips CH, Guo Y, Strachowski LM, Jha P, Reinhold C, Andreotti RF. The ovarian/adnexal reporting and data system for ultrasound: from standardized terminology to optimal risk assessment and management. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. 2023; 74: 44–57.

[10] Bang JI, Kim JY, Choi MC, Lee HY, Jang SJ. Application of multimodal imaging biomarker in the differential diagnosis of ovarian mass: integration of conventional and molecular imaging. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2022; 47: 117–122.

[11] Chen L, Yan L, Chai H, Wang G. Clinical significance of improved gynecologic imaging report and data system in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Minerva Surgery. 2023; 78: 318–319.

[12] Cherukuri S, Jajoo S, Dewani D. The international ovarian tumor analysis-assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (IOTA-ADNEX) model assessment for risk of ovarian malignancy in adnexal masses. Cureus. 2022; 14: e31194.

[13] Haliti TI, Hoxha I, Mojsiu R, Mandal R, Goç G, Hoti KD. Diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers and international ovarian tumor analysis simple rules in diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America. 2024; 38: 251–265.

[14] Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, Froyman W, Benacerraf BR, Bennett GL, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system committee. Radiology. 2020; 294: 168–185.

[15] Knipprath-Mészáros AM, Tozzi A, Butenschön A, Reina H, Schoetzau A, Montavon C, et al. High negative prediction for the Basel sarcoma score: sonographic assessment of features suspicious of uterine sarcoma. Gynecologic Oncology. 2023; 174: 182–189.

[16] Xie WT, Wang YQ, Xiang ZS, Du ZS, Huang SX, Chen YJ, et al. Efficacy of IOTA simple rules, O-RADS, and CA125 to distinguish benign and malignant adnexal masses. Journal of Ovarian Research. 2022; 15: 15.

[17] Zhang Q, Ding J, Wang Y, He L, Xue F. Tumor microenvironment manipulates chemoresistance in ovarian cancer (Review). Oncology Reports. 2022; 47: 102.

[18] Chen H, Jiang Q, Yin Y. Increased risk of ovarian and breast malignancies in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a review article. Cellular and Molecular Biology. 2023; 69: 15–21.

[19] Sessa C, Balmaña J, Bober SL, Cardoso MJ, Colombo N, Curigliano G, et al.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org. Risk reduction and screening of cancer in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Annals of Oncology. 2023; 34: 33–47.

[20] Rampes S, Choy SP. Early diagnosis of symptomatic ovarian cancer in primary care in the UK: opportunities and challenges. Primary Health Care Research & Development. 2022; 23: e52.

[21] Luo HJ, Hu ZD, Cui M, Zhang XF, Tian WY, Ma CQ, et al. Diagnostic performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in identifying primary ovarian cancer. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2023; 49: 998–1006.

[22] Janas L, Stachowiak G, Glowacka E, Piwowarczyk I, Kajdos M, Soja M, et al. The use of CA125, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), risk of malignancy index (RMI) and subjective assessment (SA) in preoperative diagnosing of ovarian tumors. Ginekologia Polska. 2024; 95: 321–327.

[23] Dong S, Yu F, Liu Y, Yu X, Sun X, Wang W, et al. Comparison of the clinical characteristics and prognosis between clear cell carcinomas and high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. Ginekologia Polska. 2023; 94: 792–798.

[24] Song L, Qi J, Zhao J, Bai S, Wu Q, Xu R. Diagnostic value of CA125, HE4, and systemic immune-inflammation index in the preoperative investigation of ovarian masses. Medicine. 2023; 102: e35240.

[25] Basha MAA, Metwally MI, Gamil SA, Khater HM, Aly SA, El Sammak AA, et al. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses. European Radiology. 2021; 31: 674–684.