Abstract 912: Macrophage inhibitory factor (MIF), osteopontin (OPN) and anti-interleukin-8 (IL-8) autoantibodies (AAb) complement CA125 for detection of early-stage ovarian cancer

Author(s):  
Jing Guo ◽  
Wei-lei Yang ◽  
Joseph Celestino ◽  
Karen Lu ◽  
Anna E. Lokshin ◽  
...  
Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Guo ◽  
Wei-Lei Yang ◽  
Daewoo Pak ◽  
Joseph Celestino ◽  
Karen H. Lu ◽  
...  

Early detection of ovarian cancer promises to reduce mortality. While serum CA125 can detect more than 60% of patients with early stage (I–II) disease, greater sensitivity might be observed with a panel of biomarkers. Ten protein antigens and 12 autoantibody biomarkers were measured in sera from 76 patients with early stage (I–II), 44 patients with late stage (III–IV) ovarian cancer and 200 healthy participants in the normal risk ovarian cancer screening study. A four-biomarker panel (CA125, osteopontin (OPN), macrophage inhibitory factor (MIF), and anti-IL-8 autoantibodies) detected 82% of early stage cancers compared to 65% with CA125 alone. In early stage subjects the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the panel (0.985) was significantly greater (p < 0.001) than the AUC for CA125 alone (0.885). Assaying an independent validation set of sera from 71 early stage ovarian cancer patients, 45 late stage patients and 131 healthy women, AUC in early stage disease was improved from 0.947 with CA125 alone to 0.974 with the four-biomarker panel (p = 0.015). Consequently, OPN, MIF and IL-8 autoantibodies can be used in combination with CA125 to distinguish ovarian cancer patients from healthy controls with high sensitivity. Osteopontin appears to be a robust biomarker that deserves further evaluation in combination with CA125.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingduo Kong ◽  
Hongyi Wei ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Yilin Li ◽  
Yongjun Wang

Abstract Background Laparoscopy has been widely used for patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). However, there is limited evidence regarding whether survival outcomes of laparoscopy are equivalent to those of laparotomy among patients with eEOC. The result of survival outcomes of laparoscopy is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of eEOC. Methods According to the keywords, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from January 1994 to January 2021. Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for patients with eEOC were assessed for eligibility. Only studies including outcomes of overall survival (OS) were enrolled. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (Version 12.0) and Review Manager (Version 5.2). Results A total of 6 retrospective non-random studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no difference between two approaches for patients with eEOC in OS (HR = 0.6, P = 0.446), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.6, P = 0.137) and upstaging rate (OR = 1.18, P = 0.54). But the recurrence rate of laparoscopic surgery was lower than that of laparotomic surgery (OR = 0.48, P = 0.008). Conclusions Laparoscopy and laparotomy appear to provide comparable overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes for patients with eEOC. Further high-quality studies are needed to enhance this statement.


2001 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gamal H. Eltabbakh ◽  
Pramila R. Yadev ◽  
Ann Morgan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document