AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2642-9756/064
*Corresponding Author: Carmen Manuela Tauste Rubio, Gynecology and Obstetrics in the Navarre Health System – Osasunbidea, university of Barcelona, Spain
Citation: Carmen Manuela Tauste Rubio (2021) Little Clinical Relevance of Ca125, Cea and Ca125/Cea Ratio for the Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian and Non- Ovarian Carcinomatosis. J. Women Health Care and Issues 4(5); DOI: 10.31579/2642-9756/064
Copyright: © 2021 Carmen Manuela Tauste Rubio, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 12 May 2021 | Accepted: 28 May 2021 | Published: 17 June 2021
Keywords: CA125; CEA; carcinomatosis; ovarian mass; ovarian tumor; ovarian cancer
Background
In women, peritoneal cancer is commonly associated to epithelial ovarian cancer. Ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis patient survival appears to be better in comparison to other peritoneal Malignancies, e.g., colorectal neoplasms or mesotheliomas. Here, we aim to analyze the value of CA125, CEA, CA125/CEA ratio (CCR) tumor markers as preoperative tools for the diagnosis ovarian cancer.
Material and methods:
From 2005-2008, we recruit prospectively patients admitted to the Navarre Hospital Complex Gynecological service with peritoneal carcinomatosis and suspicion of ovarian cancer origins. The final diagnosis of ovarian cancer carcinomatosis or other malignancies was obtained through Biopsy or cytology. CA 125, CEA and CCR were determined from preoperative venous blood Samples. We compared the tumor markers values between groups of ovarian cancer carcinomatosis and non-ovarian cancer carcinomatosis and calculate the receiver operating curves (ROC) for CA 125, CEA and CCR.
Results
From 250 patients with suspicion of having ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis, only 86.4% of the Cases were finally diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Sensitivities of CA125 > 35 mg/dL, CEA < 5 ngr/mL, and CCR > 25 were 95.5%, 91.9%, and 93.6% with specificities of 4.6%, 40.9% and 40.0%, respectively. ROC displayed poor performance for CA125 and CEA for detecting ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis patients (area under the curve (AUC): 0.69 and 0.63, respectively) while ROC analysis of CCR showed better results (AUC: 0.74).
Conclusions:
CCR is somehow useful to differentiate between ovarian and non-ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis patients in comparison with CA125 and CEA alone, although without sufficient specificity for improving the differential diagnosis.
Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) represents 95% of all ovarian malignancies with the majority of patients in advanced-stage of the disease at presentation.[1] EOC encompasses the epithelial malignancies of ovaries, fallopian tubes and peritoneal primary site, due to their common pathogenic mechanisms. [2, 3] Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a late-stage manifestation of ovarian cancer, as well as of other malignancies such as colorectal or gastric cancers with different prognosis and treatment. [4, 5] To date, a confirmatory biopsy is mandatory for a definitive diagnosis of ovarian carcinomatosis.
Serum biomarkers may be useful to predict EOC diagnosis. Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) are routinely used in patients suspected of having ovarian cancer.[6] Although much research has been devoted to investigate these biomarkers, the reports usually refer to ovarian cancer in general with no differentiation between stages.
Serum CA125 glycoprotein level is the most widely studied biochemical screening method for ovarian cancer. The standard threshold is 35 mg/dL. Ovarian cancer raises CA125 50% in stages I and II and up to 90% in stages III and IV [7]. Frequently, its concentration may rise in certain gynecological conditions, e.g., endometriosis, leiomyomas and pelvic inflammatory disease, as well as in other non-gynecological disorders, such as hepatic cirrhosis and heart failure. Furthermore, CA125 values may be elevated in 1% of the normal population [8]. In 2000, Meyer et al. showed that 82% of subjects with ovarian cancer and 28% of patients with non-gynecological cancers (including pancreatic, breast, and colon cancers) have increased CA125 levels. [8]
The CEA is normally produced in fetal tissue; however, it may also be synthesized in certain type of carcinomas. Serum concentrations exceeding 5 ng/ml are often found in patients with colorectal, gastric, breast or lung cancer, as well as in certain types of gynecological tumors. Furthermore, elevated CEA concentrations may associate with infection, pancreatitis, hepatic cirrhosis and some benign tumors. In colorectal cancer, CEA values above 20 ng/ml have clinical relevance because of the relationship with metastasis [8]. Serum CEA is elevated in approximately 35% of all ovarian cancer patients and occurs more often in mucinous tumors (88%) than in serous ones (19%) [9].
Tests with CA125/CEA ratio (CCR) have been carried out aiming to differentiate ovarian cancers from non-ovarian cancers in pelvic masses. [9] However, no special consideration was given to tumor stage or load. In 1990, Buamah et al published a study with 155 patients who had elevated CA125 concentrations from which 47 patients had been diagnosed ovarian cancer, 38 colorectal cancer, 24 cervical cancer, 17 gastric cancer, and 9 pancreatic cancer. [10] The authors report that a CA125/CEA ratio above 25 may be used as a tool to differentiate ovarian cancer from the other diagnoses. Yedema et al in 1992 studied the CCR in 47 cases of advanced EOC and 24 cases of colorectal cancer. A CA125/CEA ratio over 25 showed 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity for detecting CCR ovarian cancer. [11] In 2011, Sørensen et al. published a trial with 640 patients (ovarian laboratory investigation). In this population, malignant diagnosis was confirmed in 355 subjects: 248 ovarian tumors and 107 non-ovarian tumors. The outcomes improved with CCR in comparison with CA125 or CEA alone, achieving a specificity of 86% when the cut-off value was increased from 25 to 100. [12] It is remarkably that EORTC-55971 trial in 2011, led by Ignace Vergote, used CCR higher than 25 as one of the criteria for patient recruitment
In the present study, we aim to analyze the value of our routine tumor markers CA125 and CEA and the CCR as preoperative tools to differentiate between ovarian and non-ovarian primary cancer in patients with carcinomatosis.
Material and Methods:
Between January 2005 and December 2016, we recruited 250 patients who were admitted to the Navarre Hospital Complex (Spain) Department of Gynecologic Oncology with suspicion of ovarian carcinomatosis. We prospectively identified and registered all of these women in a database designed specially to assess the diagnostic process. Recruitment criteria were radiological suspicion of peritoneal surface malignancy through computed tomography scans [13] or surgical procedure and final pathological diagnosis. As the recruitment was prospective, the EOC patients without carcinomatosis were not included. In all suspicious patient we requested the serum tumor markers prior the main treatment per protocol.[6] After pathologic or cytologic study, the diagnostic of non- malignant disease of peritoneum was the single exclusion criteria.
Tumor marker blood tests were performed during the diagnostic procedure. Age, Main Symptom and Performance status (PS) data as the ECOG-PS scale were collected at the beginning of the diagnosis. [14]
We generated descriptive statistics for all the measurements: means, ranges, and standard deviations for continuous variables, and frequencies and proportions for categorical data. Continuous variables were compared using Student´s t-test and categorical variables using the Chi-squared. Patient survival was calculated applying the Kaplan Meier method using the date of the diagnosis until a known date of follow-up evaluation or date of death. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to estimate specificity and sensitivity. The resulting area under the curve (AUC) indicates the average sensitivity of a marker over the entire ROC curve for ovarian PC versus non-ovarian PC. ROC analysis was plotted to examine optimal cut-off values that maximized the sum of sensitivity and 1-specificity. A p value < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference. Statistical analysis was performed with the SPSS statistical software package, version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
From the 250 patients admitted to the hospital suspected of having carcinomatosis, the final diagnostic technique was biopsy in 93.6% and cytology in 6.4% of the cases. We diagnosed 216 (86.4%) epithelial ovarian, tube or peritoneal cancers, 33 (13.2%) non-ovarian carcinomatosis and one peritoneal tuberculosis (0.4%) which were excluded from the study. Non-ovarian carcinomatosis had a wide diversity of origins: uterus in six patients, appendix in six, mesothelioma in four, pancreas in four, colon and rectum in three, small bowel in two, gastric in two, lungs in two, and miscellaneous in the remaining six patients (Figure 1).
Preoperative differentiation between ovarian and non-ovarian primary site PC is extremely important for a quality management. Despite the interest of a reliable and quick test in PC, CA 125, CEA and CCR showed poor performance to diagnose EOC.
Initially, the increase of CA125 with low CEA and the presence of an ovarian mass seemed suitable tools for predicting the origin of the PC. In fact, in the EORTC-55971 trial carried out by Ignace Vergote among the recruitment criteria was a fine-needle aspirate showing an adenocarcinoma and presence of a pelvic (ovarian) mass or a cancer antigen 125 (CA-125, KUI/mL) to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA, ng/mL) ratio greater than 25 [14]. Despite these common criteria for suspecting ovarian PC, our clinical data are discouraging in this sense.
As other studies [10, 15], CA125 levels shows for ovarian PC are higher than in non-ovarian PC, although CA125 has not demonstrated preoperative with the classic cut-off > 35 mg/dL. The increase in CA 125 threshold did not show better performance due to the consequent detriment of sensitivity. In addition, the ROC analysis represented a poor model for differentiating between ovarian and non-ovarian PC (Table 3, Figure 3A).
According to Høgdall et al., CEA does not seem useful for discarding non-ovarian malignancies because CEA is elevated in approximately 35% in ovarian tumors, particularly in mucinous types. [16] In our series, CEA < 5 mm sensitivity is 91.9% but with a limited specificity of 40.9%. Although, the ROC curve showed better performance than CA 125, AUC continued been poor to differentiate ovarian from non-ovarian PC patients (Figure 3.B).
CCR was designed to improve the performance of tumor markers for discriminating ovarian from non-ovarian malignancies. The studies by Buamah [10] and Yedema [11] showed a good accomplishment of CCR. Moro et al tested the role of CCR to identify the metastatic showed the low ability of CCR to distinguish between primary ovarian lesions from metastatic lesions.[17] Unlike Moro study, our sample is composed by patients with carcinomatosis, however the power of CCR as a discriminative test showed the ROC curve performance only has an acceptable AUC (0.74). The standard threshold described by the above-mentioned authors (CCR > 25) shows low specificity (40.0%). We modified the cut-off value in order to enhance the specificity, as was done by Sørensen et al. [12] in our case, we had to raise the threshold to 250 to achieve a specificity of 72.5%, which caused an important decrease in the sensitivity (55%). Considering these results, CCR is not an advantage for the routine management of patients suspected of having ovarian carcinomatosis in our environment. (Figure 3.C)
The importance of this study lies in clarifying which is the real diagnostic role of CA 125, CEA and CCR in the diagnostic of non-ovarian carcinomatosis. Some studies talk about the utility of this serum markers and its ratio referred to the ovarian tumor but not about the relevance of them in peritoneal carcinomatosis. [12, 17] In other studies, the CCR seems to be capital to diagnose non-ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis [9–11]. In our series the relevance of CA 125, CEA or CCR are not as important to be diagnostic. The limitations of this study are in relation with the selection bias due to, as a gynecological service, we only admitted the patients with high suspicion of gynecological peritoneal malignancy. Maybe, the behavior of these tests could be different among the patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis in digestive service or internal medicine.
Because of the poor predictive value of our standard tumor markers or their ratio and the absence of prediction of ovarian tumor presence or its size, alternative tests should be considered in PC patients. Human epididymis protein (HE4) is highly sensitive for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and higher specificity in comparison to the CA125. [18, 19]. Additional studies should be carried out to analyze the behavior of HE4 in non-ovarian tumors. Other novel techniques as differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), could become an excellent tool for diagnosis in PC. [20]
The clinical origin of ovarian and non-ovarian PC is very similar. Our standard tumor markers CA125 and CEA and their ratio show statistically significantly differences between ovarian and non-ovarian PC. However, due to their low specificity, they have little clinical relevance to diagnose ovarian PC. Other preoperative tests may have better performance to predict the origin of PC.
Conflicts Of Interest:
Carmen M. Tauste, Jesús Zabaleta, Sara Aguirre, Antonio Llueca and Juan Carlos Muruzábal declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was not supported by grant funding. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants followed the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was not obtained for this retrospective study.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
