Diagnostic Value of Serum Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4) in Ovarian Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 1106-1112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Wu ◽  
Zhi-Yuan Dai ◽  
Yong-Hong Qian ◽  
Yan Shi ◽  
Feng-Ju Liu ◽  
...  

ObjectiveHuman epididymis protein 4 (HE4), a precursor of human epididymis protein, has been recently identified as a new promising serum biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. We performed a systematic review of studies that investigated the use of HE4 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in patients with pelvic or gynecological masses. We also evaluated the diagnostic performance of HE4 for differentiating between patients with benign gynecological disease and those with ovarian cancer.MethodsWe searched PubMed database (1990–2011) to collect articles in English that evaluated the diagnostic value of HE4 in patients with gynecological or pelvic masses. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool. The data were analyzed using Meta-Disc1.4 software. Meta-analysis of the reported sensitivity and specificity of each study and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were performed.ResultsA total of 9 studies involving 1807 women were included. When the control group was composed of healthy women, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for HE4 in diagnosing ovarian cancer were 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77%–88%) and 90% (95% CI, 87%–92%), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.9271. When the control group was composed of women with benign disease, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for HE4 were 74% (95% CI, 69%–78%) and 90% (95% CI, 87%–92%). The area under the SROC curve was 0.8853.ConclusionThe current analysis indicated that HE4 may be a valuable marker in the diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Serum HE4 detection is not only a useful preoperative test for predicting the benign or malignant nature of pelvic masses but has a potential to be used as an initial step in ovarian cancer screening strategy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Liu ◽  
Lili Han ◽  
Zhen Jiao

AbstractHuman epididymis protein 4 (HE4) has been used as a biomarker of endometrial cancer (EC) in clinical practice. However, there remains a lack of systemic research on the critical values of HE4 for diagnosing different clinical stages and pathological types of EC. This study investigated the accuracy of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in the diagnosis of EC. Patients who were hospitalized for a chief complaint of abnormal vaginal hemorrhage at Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region People's Hospital between 2014 and 2019 were consecutively included. Pathological biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of EC; there were a total of 136 EC patients and 127 non-EC patients. The accuracy of HE4 in the diagnosis of EC was assessed with SPSS software. The accuracy of HE4 for diagnosing different clinical stages and pathological types of EC was also explored. The critical value of HE4 for endometrial cancer was 52.40 mmol/L, with a sensitivity of 57.35% and a specificity of 76.38%. For different stages of EC, the critical value was 36.9 mmol/L, and the sensitivity and specificity were 28% and 87.39%, respectively. For different pathological types, the critical value was 30.60 mmol/L, and the sensitivity and specificity were 93.85% and 33.33%, respectively. The diagnostic value of HE4 for EC is moderate, and the serum HE4 level cannot reflect the stage and type of EC.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052830
Author(s):  
Lizhang Xun ◽  
Lamei Zhai ◽  
Hui Xu

ObjectivesTo assess the value of conventional, Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) (conventional ultrasonography (US), Doppler US and CEUS) for diagnosing ovarian cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies published until October 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessed the diagnostic value of conventional US, Doppler US or CEUS for detecting ovarian cancer, with no restrictions placed on published language and status.Data extraction and synthesisThe study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled using the bivariate generalised linear mixed model and random effects model.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 72 studies and involved 9296 women who presented with ovarian masses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for conventional US were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.91), 6.87 (95% CI: 4.98 to 9.49) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.15), 57.52 (95% CI: 36.64 to 90.28) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for Doppler US were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.89), 6.10 (95% CI: 4.59 to 8.11) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.11), 61.76 (95% CI: 39.99 to 95.37) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for CEUS were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.95), 11.47 (95% CI: 6.52 to 20.17) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09), 152.11 (95% CI: 77.77 to 297.51) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99), respectively. Moreover, the AUC values for conventional US (p=0.002) and Doppler US (p=0.005) were inferior to those of CEUS.ConclusionsConventional US, Doppler US and CEUS have a relatively high differential diagnostic value for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to that of conventional US and Doppler US.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e0126444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi-De Hu ◽  
Ting-Ting Wei ◽  
Min Yang ◽  
Ning Ma ◽  
Qing-Qin Tang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document