Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the quality of CA125, HE4, logistic regression model based on CA125 and HE4, and ROMA algorithm in preoperational differential diagnostics of the ovarian tumors. Material and methods: To the study 110 patients enrolled. Based on histopatological examination of removed tumors, they were divided into study group (56 cancer patients) and control one (nonmalignant 54 patients). Serum CA125 and HE4 concentrations were measured following a standard procedure. Results: A commonly accepted referential value for CA125 is 35 IU/ml. In our study, this cut-off value yielded very low sensitivity and specificity results (85.2% and 63.6%, respectively). When we adopted HE4 normal value to be 140 pM,the sensitivity and specificity obtained in the investigated population was 68.5% and 94.6%, respectively. When the cut-off value for HE4 was adopted as 74 pM, the sensitivity improved considerably (88.9%), but specificity decreased to 85.7%. In case of CA125 when we adopted Ca125 normal value to be 77 IU/ml, the sensitivity and specificity obtained in the investigated population was 81.5% and 83.6%, respectively. In analysis based on combination of biomarkers, the highest sensitivity was obtained for the logistic regression model based on CA125 and HE4 (89.5%). A little bit lower sensitivity was achieved for HE4 used as a single diagnostic test (88.9%). The highest specificity was observed for ROMA algorithm (94.5%). This means that ROMA algorithm is the best diagnostic tool to differentiate between the malignant and non-malignant ovarian tumors. Conclusions: 1. ROMA algorithm yielded the highest specificity and slightly lower sensitivity in the case of differential diagnosis between malignant and non-malignant ovarian tumors. Therefore, it should become a basic tool in the ovarian tumors diagnosis prior to a surgery. 2. HE4 as a single diagnostic test (based on one marker) was found to be better suited to the ovarian tumor differential diagnosis than CA125 test. 3. Combined test, based on double marker analysis, should be applied and then the risk of the ovarian cancer should be calculated. This approach is more effective than single marker analysis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of HE4 in detecting and differentiating between types I and II epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in comparison with CA125. Material and methods: We measured HE4 and CA125 serum concentrations in 206 samples taken from patients operated in Gynecologic Oncology Department due to ovarian tumors. Ovarian cancer was confirmed in 89 cases divided into type I and type II. 52 healthy patients without any gynecological disease formed the control group. The sensitivity and specificity for type I and type II EOC detection and differentiating between both types was evaluated for HE4 and CA125. Results: The HE4 and CA125 serum concentrations were significantly higher in type II than in type I EOC (p=0.008696, p=0.000243 respectively).The HE4 and CA125 sensitivity for type I and benign tumors differentiation was 63.16% for both of them and specificity was 87.29% vs 67.89% respectively. For CA125 these differences did not reach statistical significance. The HE4 sensitivity and specificity for type II and benign tumors differentiation were 87.14% and 96.61%, respectively, and for CA125 these values were 82.86% and 94.07%, respectively. Conclusions: Pretreatment analysis of HE4 serum concentration is superior to CA125 in differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer subtypes (I and II). HE4 is superior to CA125 in detecting ovarian cancer type II. Neither HE4 nor CA125 is an effective diagnostic tool for type I ovarian cancer detection. A new highly specific and highly sensitive tumor marker for type I EOC is needed.

Objectives: Recent evidence suggests that epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) does not derive from ovarian surface epithelium but from the tissues of Mullerian origin, particularly from the fallopian tube. HE4, a protein of Mullerian origin, seems to be promising marker for EOC detection and treatment monitoring. This study was designed to compare the expression of WFDC2 gene, encoding HE4 protein, in normal tissue of the ovary, fallopian tube and EOC. The correlation between WFDC2 expression in cancer tissue and serum level of HE4 was additionally measured. Material and methods: Tumor specimens were obtained from EOC patients during primary surgery before chemotherapy. Samples of normal ovaries and fallopian tubes were collected from healthy patients operated for other reasons. Total RNA was isolated from the tissues and relative WFDC2 expression was evaluated by Real Time RTqPCR. HE4 serum level in cancer patients was measured using COBAS System. Results: EOC samples were distinguished by much higher WFDC2 expression in comparison to normal ovaries (p=0.000016). Transcriptional activity of WFDC2 in EOC specimens and in normal fallopian tubes was comparable (p=1.00). Additionally, lack of correlation between WFDC2 expression in cancer tissue and serum level of HE4 protein in ovarian cancer patients was observed (p=0.3). Conclusions: High expression of WFDC2 was demonstrated for both, EOC and fallopian tube, as opposed to its low expression observed in normal ovaries suggesting that EOC is derived from fallopian tube rather than ovary. Elevated HE4 serum concentration in EOC patients is not correlated with higher gene expression in cancer tissue.

Purpose The survival rates for ovarian cancer patients remain very low, often as a result of late diagnosis due to the asymptomatic course of the early stage disease. Based on the important biological contribution of human chorionic gonadotropin to various key processes including; cell cycle control, DNA repair, cellular differentiation and developmental processes, we hypothesized that genetic polymorphisms in the genes promoter could be associated with ovarian cancer risk. Thus, the purpose of the study was to determine whether particular polymorphisms occur in the promoter region of the human chorionic gonadotropin polypeptide 5 encoding gene, and if so, are they associated with ovarian cancer outcome. Patients and methods We analyzed Central European females diagnosed with ovarian cancer (n = 95) and controls (n = 76) for the occurrence of at least one of three polymorphisms (rs7260002, rs7246045, rs540432391) and their impact on cancer risk. The fluorescence resonance energy transfer technique was used in order to conduct single nucleotide polymorphisms genotyping. Results The occurrence of two studied polymorphisms, rs7260002 and rs540432391 present in the 5′ upstream region of the chorionic gonadotropin (CG) gene were associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The former polymorphism had a minor impact on cancer risk (P = 0.049; OR = 1.95; 95% CI = 0.97–3.92), while the latter had a much larger impact and may be of great importance in the evaluation of cancer development in the analyzed population (p Conclusions The fluorescence resonance energy transfer application used in tracking the sequence promoter variations of genes expressed during tumorigenesis may be an important factor in early prediction of ovarian cancer. Taking under consideration the elevated CG expression associated with several different cancer types it seems reasonable to estimate if the analyzed polymorphisms could affect cancer outcome.

The incidence of endometrial cancer is constantly growing. More aggressive types of endometrial cancer as well as the incidence in younger women is being observed. More than 80% of cases is diagnosed in early stages due to early symptoms like abnormal bleeding. The remaining 20% of asymptomatic cases of endometrial cancer as well as the cases of false negative histopathological diagnoses are mostly the incidences of serous endometrial cancer and are a true diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. This was the reason of our study in which we proposed investigation of HE4 levels as a complementary diagnostic method in management and diagnosing of EC.Serum HE4 level was measured in 92 patients with abnormal vaginal bleeding. Based on histhology after curretage the study group was divided into the benign and malignant endometrial pathology groups. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney testThe difference of serum HE4 level between benign endometrial pathology and cancer was significant (p = 0.000) and the cut-off for identification of patients with endometrial cancer was 58.08 pmol/l. There was a significant difference between G2 and G3 endometrial cancer, and G1 and G3. (p = 0,4 and p = 0,008 respectively) Patients who needed lymphadenectomy had significantly higher HE4 level than those who had no indications for this procedure (p = 0,001).HE4 is a useful biomarker in diagnosing endometrial cancer. HE4 is associated with high grade endometrial cancer. It can also serve as an useful preoperative counseling tool to identify patients, who may require pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy.

Background Metastasis is a common feature of many advanced stage cancers and metastatic spread is thought to be responsible for cancer progression. Most cancer cells are localized in the primary tumor and only a small population of circulating tumor cells (CTC) has metastatic potential. CTC amount reflects the aggressiveness of tumors, therefore their detection can be used to determine the prognosis and treatment of cancer patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate human chorionic gonadotropin beta subunit (CGB) and gonadoliberin type 1 (GNRH1) expression as markers of tumor cells circulating in peripheral blood of gynecological cancer patients, indicating the metastatic spread of tumor. Methods CGB and GNRH1 expression level in tumor tissue and blood of cancer patients was assessed by real-time RT-PCR. The data was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and Spearman tests. In order to distinguish populations with homogeneous genes' expression the maximal likelihood method for one- and multiplied normal distribution was used. Result Real time RT-PCR results revealed CGB and GNRH1 genes activity in both tumor tissue and blood of gynecological cancers patients. While the expression of both genes characterized all examined tumor tissues, in case of blood analysis, the transcripts of GNRH1 were found in all cancer patients while CGB were present in 93% of patients. CGB and GNRH1 activity was detected also in control group, which consisted of tissue lacking cancerous changes and blood of healthy volunteers. The log-transformation of raw data fitted to multiplied normal distribution model showed that CGB and GNRH1 expression is heterogeneous and more than one population can be distinguished within defined groups. Based on CGB gene activity a critical value indicating the presence of cancer cells in studied blood was distinguished. In case of GNRH1 this value was not established since the results of the gene expression in blood of cancer patients and healthy volunteers were overlapping. However one subpopulation consists of cancer patient with much higher GNRH1 expression than in control group was found. Conclusions Assessment of CGB and GNRH1 expression level in cancer patients' blood may be useful for indicating metastatic spread of tumor cells.