Open Access

Comparison of diagnostic values between CA125 combined with CA199 and ultrasound combined with CT in ovarian cancer

  • Authors:
    • Bingcheng Guo
    • Wei Lian
    • Shuai Liu
    • Yingchun Cao
    • Jianhua Liu
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: April 18, 2019     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10264
  • Pages: 5523-5528
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Application values of CA125 combined with CA199 and ultrasound combined with computed tomography (CT) in the clinical diagnosis of ovarian cancer were compared. A retrospective analysis was performed on 168 ovarian cancer patients admitted to the Department of Gynecology in Jining No.1 People's Hospital from July 2013 to March 2016. Of the patients 107 with malignant tumors were in the malignant group, and 61 patients with benign tumors were in the benign group. Another 98 healthy controls in the same period were in the normal group. Chemiluminescence was used for the detection of levels of tumor markers CA125 and CA199 in the serum of all patients. CA125 combined with CA199 and color Doppler ultrasound combined with CT scan were used to diagnose and analyze the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive detection rate of ovarian cancer patients at different stages. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic coincidence rate of ultrasound combined with CT in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer were 97.20, 80.32 and 91.07%, respectively, which were significantly higher than the 92.52, 73.77 and 85.71% of serum CA125 combined with CA199. The positive detection rate of ultrasound combined with CT in the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer was 93.55%, higher than 83.87% of CA125 combined with CA199. The sensitivity, specificity, coincidence rate and positive detection rate of ultrasound combined with CT in the diagnosis were higher than those of CA125 combined with CA199. In the actual diagnosis process, these two diagnostic schemes can be selectively and comprehensively applied, so as to make a correct diagnosis, which is of great significance for reducing patient mortality.

References

1 

Coburn SB, Bray F, Sherman ME and Trabert B: International patterns and trends in ovarian cancer incidence, overall and by histologic subtype. Int J Cancer. 140:2451–2460. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Barnett R: Ovarian cancer. Lancet. 387:12652016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Hellstrom I and Hellstrom KE: SMRP and HE4 as biomarkers for ovarian carcinoma when used alone and in combination with CA125 and/or each other. Adv Exp Med Biol. 622:15–21. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Huang XM, Zhao YM, Pu Z-Y and Yu HY: Clinical value of combined detection of serum CA125, HE4 and MMP-9 in early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Labeled Immunoassays Clin Med. 9:1029–1032. 2016.(In Chinese).

5 

Zhang Y, Jiang L and Song L: Meta-analysis of diagnostic value of serum carbohydrate antigen 199 in pancreatic cancer. Minerva Med. 107:62–69. 2016.PubMed/NCBI

6 

Zheng LE, Qu JY and He F: The diagnosis and pathological value of combined detection of HE4 and CA125 for patients with ovarian cancer. Open Med (Wars). 11:125–132. 2016.PubMed/NCBI

7 

Ietimalar H, Koksal A, Chelik N, Kasap B, Chukurova K and Iuldarum A: Evaluation of mammography and risk of developing breast cancer in patients with ovarian or endometrial cancer. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 48:23–30. 2009.(In Bulgarian). PubMed/NCBI

8 

Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, Nanni C, Messa C, Meriggiola MC, Pelusi G, Al-Nahhas A, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun. 28:589–595. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Schirpenbach C, Seiler L, Maser-Gluth C, Beuschlein F, Reincke M and Bidlingmaier M: Automated chemiluminescence-immunoassay for aldosterone during dynamic testing: Comparison to radioimmunoassays with and without extraction steps. Clin Chem. 52:1749–1755. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Wilailak S, Chan KK, Chen CA, Nam JH, Ochiai K, Aw TC, Sabaratnam S, Hebbar S, Sickan J, Schodin BA, et al: Distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic mass utilizing an algorithm with HE4, menopausal status, and ultrasound findings. J Gynecol Oncol. 26:46–53. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Kim CK, Park BK, Choi JY, Kim BG and Han H: Detection of recurrent ovarian cancer at MRI: comparison with integrated PET/CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 31:868–875. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Ali AT: Fertility drugs and ovarian cancer. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 18:567–576. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Moore RG, Jabre-Raughley M, Brown AK, Robison KM, Miller MC, Allard WJ, Kurman RJ, Bast RC and Skates SJ: Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay vs the Risk of Malignancy Index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 203:e221–226. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar

14 

Shen Y and Li L: Serum HE4 superior to CA125 in predicting poorer surgical outcome of epithelial ovarian cancer. Tumour Biol. 37:14765–14772. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Fischerova D and Burgetova A: Imaging techniques for the evaluation of ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 28:697–720. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Guo J, Yu J, Song X and Mi H: Serum CA125, CA199 and CEA combined detection for epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosis: A meta-analysis. Open Med (Wars). 12:131–137. 2017.PubMed/NCBI

17 

Duffy MJ, Bonfrer JM, Kulpa J, Rustin GJ, Soletormos G, Torre GC, Tuxen MK and Zwirner M: CA125 in ovarian cancer: European Group on Tumor Markers guidelines for clinical use. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 15:679–691. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Zhang Q, Wang CR, Yu JP, Ma Q and Xu WW: The Establishment of an HE4-CLIA Method and the Combined Analysis of HE4 and CA125 in Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Lab Anal. 30:709–718. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Iyer VR and Lee SI: MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 194:311–321. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Wang K, Wang L, Cheng S J and Leng W: Diagnostic value of combined detection of serum CA125 and CA199 for ovarian cancer. Chinese J Lab Diagnosis. 4:574–576. 2014.(In Chinese).

21 

Xu X-M and Jiang XS: Ultrasound combined with CA125 and CEA in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Chinese J Clin Oncol Rehab. 9:1059–1061. 2016.(In Chinese).

22 

Rao A and Carter J: Ultrasound and ovarian cancer screening: is there a future? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 18:24–30. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Schmidt S, Meuli RA, Achtari C and Prior JO: Peritoneal carcinomatosis in primary ovarian cancer staging: comparison between MDCT, MRI, and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 40:371–377. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

June 2019
Volume 17 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Guo, B., Lian, W., Liu, S., Cao, Y., & Liu, J. (2019). Comparison of diagnostic values between CA125 combined with CA199 and ultrasound combined with CT in ovarian cancer . Oncology Letters, 17, 5523-5528. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10264
MLA
Guo, B., Lian, W., Liu, S., Cao, Y., Liu, J."Comparison of diagnostic values between CA125 combined with CA199 and ultrasound combined with CT in ovarian cancer ". Oncology Letters 17.6 (2019): 5523-5528.
Chicago
Guo, B., Lian, W., Liu, S., Cao, Y., Liu, J."Comparison of diagnostic values between CA125 combined with CA199 and ultrasound combined with CT in ovarian cancer ". Oncology Letters 17, no. 6 (2019): 5523-5528. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10264