scholarly journals EPV223/#608 The diagnostic accuracy of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) for discriminating between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s):  
P Lof ◽  
M Olsen ◽  
A Stiekema ◽  
D Van Den Broek ◽  
E Wilthagen ◽  
...  
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.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038449
Author(s):  
Lisa Helen Telford ◽  
Leila Hussein Abdullahi ◽  
Eleanor Atieno Ochodo ◽  
Liesl Joanna Zuhlke ◽  
Mark Emmanuel Engel

ObjectiveTo summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated.ResultsSix studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only.ConclusionsHAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016051261.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document