吉林大学学报(医学版)  2019, Vol. 45 Issue (04): 905-910     DOI: 10.13481/j.1671-587x.20190428

扩展功能

文章信息

王一品, 赫东芸, 黄琼卫, 盛敏佳
WANG Yipin, HE Dongyun, HUANG Qiongwei, SHENG Minjia
卵巢癌风险预测模型在上皮性卵巢癌早期诊断中的应用价值
Application value of risk ovarian malignancy algorithm in early diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer
吉林大学学报(医学版), 2019, 45(04): 905-910
Journal of Jilin University (Medicine Edition), 2019, 45(04): 905-910
10.13481/j.1671-587x.20190428

文章历史

收稿日期: 2019-01-15
卵巢癌风险预测模型在上皮性卵巢癌早期诊断中的应用价值
王一品 , 赫东芸 , 黄琼卫 , 盛敏佳     
吉林大学中日联谊医院妇产科, 吉林 长春 130033
[摘要]: 目的: 探讨卵巢癌风险预测模型(ROMA)对上皮性卵巢癌患病风险的评估价值及与患者临床病理分期的关联性,为上皮性卵巢癌的临床诊疗及预后分析提供依据。方法: 回顾性分析经术后石蜡切片病理确诊的135例卵巢肿瘤患者的临床资料,将其分为卵巢良性肿瘤组(n=66)、上皮性卵巢癌组(n=58)和非上皮性卵巢癌组(n=11)。根据各组患者术前检测的血清人附睾蛋白4(HE4)和糖类抗原125(CA125)水平计算其ROMA值,根据各组患者HE4、CA125和ROMA临界值计算HE4、CA125和ROMA阳性率,分析卵巢癌患者血清HE4、CA125和ROMA阳性率与患者临床分期之间的关系,评价其对卵巢肿瘤患者的诊断效能。结果: 上皮性卵巢癌组患者血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值均明显高于卵巢良性肿瘤组及非上皮性卵巢癌组(P < 0.05)。上皮性卵巢癌组患者HE4、CA125和ROMA阳性率均高于卵巢良性肿瘤组(P < 0.01),并随着临床分期的升高而升高。与HE4和CA125阳性率比较,卵巢良性肿瘤患者ROMA阳性率最低,在各期上皮性卵巢癌中ROMA阳性率均高于CA125阳性率。ROMA在绝经后卵巢肿瘤患者组的敏感度及阴性预测值均高于绝经前卵巢肿瘤患者组(P < 0.05),而特异度及阳性预测值在绝经前及绝经后卵巢肿瘤患者组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3项指标中,ROMA的各项诊断效能指标最高,CA125的各项诊断效能指标最低。结论: ROMA对上皮性卵巢癌风险的诊断价值高于CA125或HE4,对绝经后患者具有更好的诊断价值,可提高卵巢癌的早期诊断效能。
关键词: 糖类抗原125    人附睾蛋白4    卵巢肿瘤    卵巢癌风险预测模型    临床诊断    
Application value of risk ovarian malignancy algorithm in early diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer
WANG Yipin , HE Dongyun , HUANG Qiongwei , SHENG Minjia     
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, China-Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun 130033, China
[ABSTRACT]: Objective: To investigate the value of risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in evaluation of the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer and its association with the clinical pathological stages, and to provide a basis for the clinical diagnosis and treatment and prognosis analysis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: The clinical materials of 135 patients with ovarian tumor confirmed by paraffin section pathology after operation were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into benign ovarian tumor group(n=66), epithelial ovarian cancer group(n=58) and non-epithelial ovarian cancer group(n=11).According to the cutoff values of HE4, CA125, and ROMA of the patients in various groups, the positive rates of HE4, CA125, and ROMA of the patients in various groups were calculated.Based on the serum levels of human epididymis protein 4(HE4) and carbohydrate antigen 125(CA125) detected before operation of the patients in various groups, the relationships between the positive rates of serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA and the clinical stages of the patients with ovarian cancer; their diagnosis efficacies in the patients with ovarian cancer were evaluated. Results: The serum CA125, HE4 levels and ROMA value of the patients in epithelial ovarian cancer group were significantly higher than those in benign ovarian tumor group and non-epithelial ovarian cancer group (P < 0.05). The positive rates of HE4, CA125, and ROMA of the patients in epithelial ovarian cancer group were higher than those in benign ovarian tumor group (P < 0.01), and showed an increasing trend with the increase of clinical stages.Compared with the positive rates of HE4 and CA125, the ROMA had the lowest positive rate in the patients with ovarian benign tumor, and the positive rates of ROMA in all stages of epithelial ovarian cancer were higher than those of CA125.The sensitivity and the negative predictive value of ROMA in postmenopausal patients with ovarian cancer group were higher than those in premenopausal patients with ovarian cancer group (P < 0.05), while the specificity and the positive predictive value were not significantly different between premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with ovarian cancer groups (P>0.05). Among the three indexes, ROMA had the highest diagnostic efficacy index and CA125 had the lowest. Conclusion: The diagnostic value of ROMA for evaluating the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer was higher than those of CA125 and HE4, which has a better diagnostic value for the postmenopausal patients and can improve the early diagnosis efficiency of ovarian cancer.
KEYWORDS: carbohydrate antigen 125     human epididymis protein 4     ovarian neoplasms     Risk Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm     clinical diagnosis    

卵巢恶性肿瘤在妇科三大恶性肿瘤中,死亡率居于首位,对女性的生命健康构成严重威胁[1]。其中,上皮性卵巢癌占卵巢恶性肿瘤的98%。卵巢癌早期发病隐匿,缺乏典型的临床表现,75%的临床患者在诊断时已发展到晚期,5年内存活率低于30%[2]。因此,卵巢肿瘤的早期诊断对患者的治疗和预后至关重要。目前,糖类抗原125(arbohydrate antigen 125,CA125)是美国国立综合癌症网络(NCCN)卵巢癌诊疗指南公认的“金标准”标志物,但因其特异性不足,在一些卵巢良性疾病中也可出现高表达,从而产生假阳性。人附睾蛋白4(human epididymis protein 4,HE4)被确定为卵巢癌的血清标志物,并且在卵巢上皮癌患者的血清中具有高水平的表达,因此增加了卵巢癌检测的特异性[3]。然而, 单一指标对卵巢肿瘤诊断的敏感度、准确性和特异度仍无法兼顾,误报很容易导致判断错误。国外有研究[4]提出卵巢癌风险预测模型(Risk Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm, ROMA)这一概念,将HE4、CA125水平和绝经状态结合起来,根据CA125和HE4的血浆浓度,分别对绝经前、后的卵巢癌患者建立了数学模型,提高了二者联合检测的诊断效率,对于绝经前后盆腹腔肿物卵巢癌风险的预测具有重要意义。近年来,LYCKE等[5]、CHAN等[6]和ROMAGNOLO等[7]国外多中心研究结果也支持以上观点,但目前在中国仍缺乏多中心研究数据,且目前关于ROMA与临床分期间关系的研究尚有限。本研究通过回顾性分析探讨ROMA对患上皮性卵巢癌风险的评估价值并分析其与患者临床病理分期的关联性,为临床诊治卵巢癌及评估其预后提供依据。

1 资料与方法 1.1 一般资料

选择2016年6月—2018年8月在吉林大学中日联谊医院就诊并经术后石蜡切片病理确诊的135例卵巢肿瘤患者,其中包括66例卵巢良性肿瘤患者、58例上皮性卵巢癌患者及11例非上皮性卵巢癌患者,将其分别作为卵巢良性肿瘤组、上皮性卵巢癌组及非上皮性卵巢癌组,对其进行临床回顾性分析并随访。卵巢良性肿瘤患者年龄为13~77岁,平均年龄(46.89±16.72)岁,绝经前30例,绝经后36例;上皮性卵巢癌患者年龄为20~75岁,平均年龄(53.94±13.39)岁,绝经前28例,绝经后30例;非上皮性卵巢癌患者年龄为26~71岁,平均年龄(42.83±18.16)岁,绝经前6例,绝经后5例。根据2013年国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)的临床病理分期标准将上皮性卵巢癌组分为4期,其中Ⅰ期13例,Ⅱ期15例,Ⅲ期18例,Ⅳ期12例。所选患者无肿瘤家族史,其他重要脏器均无疾患,无遗传性疾病、血液系统或免疫系统疾病。所有研究对象的绝经标准[8]:①年龄≥60岁;②年龄 < 60岁、自然闭经≥1年且激素水平处于绝经期范围。

1.2 标本采集

早晨抽取受试者空腹静脉血3~4 mL,并将样品收集于5 mL无抗凝试管中,在室温下静置30min,然后4000r·min-1离心15min分离血清,保存于-20℃冰箱待测。

1.3 卵巢肿瘤患者血清中HE4和CA125水平检测及ROMA值计算

使用美国Abbott公司i2000全自动化学发光分析仪(微粒子发光法)及其Architect试剂盒检测卵巢癌患者血清中HE4和CA125水平。采用ROMA计算软件自动计算ROMA值:绝经前预测指数(PI)=-12.0+2.38×LN(HE4)+0.0626×LN(CA125),绝经后PI=-8.09+1.04×LN(HE4)+0.732×LN(CA125),ROMA=exp(PI)/[1+ exp(PI)]×100,其中LN是自然对数, exp(PI)= ePI

1.4 检测指标的参考范围和标准

本研究检测的ROMA值在绝经前和绝经后患者的临界值分别为7.4%和25.3%[9]。超过临界值被归类为卵巢癌的高风险组(阳性),低于临界值被归类为卵巢癌的低风险组(阴性)。绝经前和绝经后患者血清HE4临界值分别为70和140 pmol·L-1。血清CA125的临界值为35 U·mL-1。高于临界值为阳性,低于临界值为阴性[10]

1.5 统计学分析

采用SPSS24.0统计软件进行统计学分析。经正态性检验,各组患者血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值呈偏态分布,因此用采用M(q1, q3)进行统计描述,多组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验,当差异有统计学意义时,采用Bonferroni校正法进行两两比较。卵巢癌患者HE4、CA125和ROMA阳性率以百分率表示,不同分期卵巢癌患者HE4、CA125和ROMA的阳性率比较采用χ2检验。ROMA的诊断效能指标根据以下公式计算:敏感度=真阳性例数/(真阳性例数+假阴性例数)×100%,特异度=真阴性例数/(假阳性例数+真阴性例数)×100%,阳性预测值=真阳性例数/(真阳性例数+假阳性例数)×100%,阴性预测值=真阴性例数/(真阴性例数+假阴性例数)×100%,绝经前后ROMA诊断效能和各指标诊断效能比较采用χ2检验。以P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 各组患者血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值

采用非参数Kruskal-Wallis单因素ANOVA检验进行多组间比较,各组患者血清CA125、HE4水平和ROMA值差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05);采用Bonferroni校正法进行组间两两比较,与卵巢良性肿瘤组和非上皮性卵巢癌比较,上皮性卵巢癌组患者血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值均明显升高(P < 0.05);非上皮性卵巢癌与卵巢良性肿瘤组各指标比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。见表 1

表 1 各组患者血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值 Tab. 1 Levels of serum HE4 and CA125 and ROMA values of patients in various groups
[M(q1, q3)]
Group n HE4[cB/(mol·L-1)] CA125[λB/(U·mL-1)] ROMA(η/%)
Ovarian benign tumor 66 35.00(22.00, 47.25) 16.15(11.68, 25.13) 5.50(2.20, 11.20)
Epithelial ovarian cancer 58 121.00(64.50, 322.50) 168.90(10.00, 483.60) 63.90(23.75, 88.25)
Non-epithelial ovarian cancer 11 51.00(44.00, 96.00) 72.40(26.80, 176.10) 16.90(5.80, 31.30)
H 50.166 53.963 52.379
P 0.000 0.000 0.000
2.2 卵巢良性肿瘤组和不同临床病理分期上皮性卵巢癌患者HE4、CA125及ROMA阳性率

卵巢良性肿瘤组和Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ期上皮性卵巢癌组患者HE4、CA125及ROMA阳性率比较差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.01),将不同分期上皮性卵巢癌分别与卵巢良性肿瘤组进行两两比较,差异亦有统计学意义(P < 0.01);除Ⅳ期外,各指标阳性率随临床分期升高而呈升高趋势;卵巢良性肿瘤组中ROMA阳性率最低(4.55%),CA125阳性率最高(18.18%);在各期上皮性卵巢癌中,ROMA阳性率均高于CA125阳性率,尤以Ⅰ期显著。见表 2

表 2 卵巢良性肿瘤组和不同临床病理分期上皮性卵巢癌组患者HE4、CA125和ROMA阳性率 Tab. 2 Positive rates ofHE4, CA125, and ROMA of patients in benign ovarian tumor group and epithelial ovarian cancerwith different clinicopathological stages groups
[n(η/%)]
Clinicopathological stage HE4 CA125 ROMA
Benign ovariantumor 5(7.58) 12(18.18) 3(4.55)
Epithelial ovarian cancer stage Ⅰ 8(61.54) 5(38.46) 9(69.23)
Epithelial ovarian cancer stage Ⅱ 11(73.33) 10(66.67) 12(80.00)
Epithelial ovarian cancer stage Ⅲ 15(83.33) 14(77.78) 16(88.89)
Epithelial ovarian cancer stage Ⅳ 10(83.33) 9(75.00) 11(91.67)
χ2 62.085 34.281 80.942
P < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
2.3 ROMA对不同绝经状态上皮性卵巢癌患者的诊断效能

ROMA在绝经后患者组的敏感度及阴性预测值均高于绝经前上皮性卵巢癌患者组(P < 0.05),而特异度和阳性预测值绝经前及绝经后上皮性卵巢癌患者组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。见表 3

表 3 不同绝经状态上皮性卵巢癌患者ROMA的诊断效能 Tab. 3 Diagnosis efficacies of ROMA in epithelial ovarian cancer patients with different menopause status
(η/%)
Group Sensitivity Specificity Positive predictive value Negative predictive value Diagnostic coincidence rate
Premenopausal 82.14 96.67 95.83 85.29 89.66
Postmenopausal 90.00 94.44 93.10 91.89 92.42
χ2 5.338 0.074 0.120 5.063 0.017
P 0.021 0.785 0.729 0.024 0.898
2.4 血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值对上皮性卵巢癌患者的诊断效能

ROMA各项诊断效能指标最高,CA125各项诊断效能指标最低,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。见表 4。CA125、HE4及ROMA的阳性似然比(+LR)分别为3.60、10.01和18.40,阴性似然比(-LR)分别为0.42、0.26和0.18。

表 4 血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值对上皮性卵巢癌患者的诊断效能 Tab. 4 Diagnosisefficacies of serum HE4, CAl25 levelsand ROMA values in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer
(η/%)
Item Sensitivity Specificity Positive predictive value Negative predictive value Diagnostic coincidence rate
HE4 75.86 92.42 89.80 81.33 84.68
CA125 65.52 81.82 76.00 72.97 74.19
ROMA 82.76 95.45 94.12 86.30 89.52
χ2 4.35 5.82 - - -
P 0.037 0.016 - - -
  “-”:No data.
3 讨论

卵巢肿瘤的种类繁多,根据其组织来源分类可分为上皮性肿瘤、生殖细胞性肿瘤和性索间质肿瘤,其中卵巢上皮性肿瘤占卵巢恶性肿瘤的98%。虽然卵巢癌患者的中位生存期在过去30年中显著增加,但因确诊时分期较晚使其总的治愈率仍保持在30%左右。目前,75%~80%的卵巢癌患者被诊断为晚期(Ⅲ/Ⅵ期),治愈率低于20%[11],而70%~90%Ⅰ或Ⅱ期卵巢癌患者可以通过常规手术和化疗治愈,故早期发现卵巢癌可明显改善卵巢癌患者临床诊疗效果。因此,目前临床上迫切地需要更好的方法来诊断早期卵巢癌,使其可以有更好的治疗方案,甚至从根本上治愈。在过去的几十年中,学者们评估过数以百计的潜在的血清肿瘤标志物对卵巢癌的诊断效果,但除CA125外大多数未能应用于临床。目前国际各指南中大多推荐血清CA125水平检测结合经阴道超声检查诊断卵巢癌[12],但由于超声具有主观性且依赖于超声工作者经验,其效用仍被一些学者质疑,而CA125灵敏度和特异度低,Ⅰ期卵巢癌仅有50%患者CA125为阳性,并且在一些妇科良性疾病和其他系统恶性肿瘤患者血清中CA125也升高。HE4在2002年被确定为卵巢癌的血清标志物,尤其在早期病例更具有高度敏感性[13]。研究[14]表明:由于HE4的表达独立于CA125的表达,因此联合检测较各自单独检测可获得更多信息。

ROMA由MOORE等[4]在一项多中心前瞻性研究中提出。检测血清HE4和CA125水平与绝经状态,以预测盆腔肿块为卵巢恶性肿瘤的风险,其结果表明:ROMA可用于不同绝经状态妇女卵巢癌发病风险的评估,并可将卵巢癌正确地区分为低和高风险组。2011年,MOORE等[15]针对ROMA指数的一项研究提示:ROMA能够准确识别94%患有上皮性卵巢癌的盆腔包块患者, 且超过60%的Ⅰ-Ⅱ期患者ROMA出现高值,提示ROMA可以成功预测盆腔肿块患者中高危上皮性卵巢癌患者,为其早期诊断提供理论依据。随着国内外相关研究的开展,越来越多的证据[16-17]也支持WEI等[14]和MOORE等[15]得出的结论,随着HE4的出现,其与经典肿瘤标志物CA125联合检测并计算ROMA在临床中对盆腔包块的评价应用越来越广泛。目前,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)已批准将ROMA用于女性盆腔包块的诊断和鉴别诊断。

本研究通过回顾性分析探讨了ROMA对患上皮性卵巢癌风险的评估价值,分析了其与上皮性卵巢癌患者临床病理分期及绝经状态的关联性。本研究结果表明:上皮性卵巢癌组患者血清HE4、CA125水平和ROMA值均明显高于卵巢良性肿瘤组及非上皮性卵巢癌组,说明三者对上皮性卵巢癌诊断均具有一定意义,即ROMA可以明确地将卵巢肿瘤患者区分为低、高风险组;比较卵巢良性肿瘤及不同病理分期上皮性卵巢癌患者HE4、CA125和ROMA的阳性率结果显示:上皮性卵巢癌组患者HE4、CA125和ROMA阳性率均明显高于卵巢良性肿瘤组。除Ⅳ期卵巢癌患者外,HE4、CA125和ROMA阳性率随临床分期升高而呈升高趋势。其中卵巢良性肿瘤组患者ROMA阳性率最低(3.33%~5.56%),CA125阳性率最高(13.89%~22.33%);在各分期上皮性卵巢癌患者中,ROMA阳性率均高于CA125,尤以Ⅰ期卵巢癌更为明显。由此可见,与CA125单项检测比较,ROMA可提高对卵巢癌的早期诊断效率,从而提高卵巢癌患者的五年生存率,与SHEN等[18]研究结果基本一致。但与Ⅰ、Ⅱ和Ⅲ期上皮性卵巢癌比较,Ⅳ期上皮性卵巢癌患者各指标阳性率未呈现升高趋势,可能与该组样本量较少有关。而在比较ROMA对不同绝经状态上皮性卵巢癌患者的诊断价值中,ROMA对绝经后上皮性卵巢癌患者诊断的敏感度及阴性预测值均高于绝经前,而其特异性和阳性预测值未见明显差异,提示ROMA对绝经后上皮性卵巢患者的诊断效率较绝经前患者高,与BANDIERA等[19]、DAYYANI等[20]和冯艾等[21]研究结论基本一致。在MOLINA等[22]的研究中,ROMA对绝经前后卵巢肿瘤患者诊断的敏感性度分别为74.10%和95.20%,特异度分别为88.90%和83.10%,与本研究结果基本一致;但对绝经前后卵巢肿瘤患者的阳性预测值分别44.40%和88.90%,绝经前阳性预测值明显低于绝经后,而在本研究结果(绝经前后分别为95.83%和93.10%)中未见明显差异,可能与检测方法不同导致ROMA临界值不同有关。在对血清HE4、CA125和ROMA的诊断效能的比较中,ROMA各项诊断效能指标最高,CA125各项诊断效能指标最低,两者间比较差异有统计学意义,HE4、CA125和ROMA的+LR分别为3.60、10.01和18.40,-LR分别为0.42、0.26和0.18。本研究结果表明:ROMA能够提高上皮性卵巢癌的诊断效率,帮助临床医生更准确地评估患者患卵巢癌的风险,争取最佳的治疗时机和治疗效果。由于本次研究中部分组别所选取的样本量相对较小,需在今后的研究中增加样本量进一步研究。

综上所述,ROMA是卵巢癌患者血清HE4和CA125水平与绝经状态参数的组合,其操作快速、方便,克服了单因素引起的假阳性,对于卵巢癌,尤其是上皮性卵巢癌的早期诊断和治疗具有良好价值,对绝经后卵巢肿瘤患者的诊断效率更高,有利于卵巢良恶性肿瘤的鉴别诊断,以提高卵巢癌患者的5年生存率,值得临床推广。

参考文献
[1] PARYZHAK SIA, IAKUBETS' O I, VOROBETS Z D. Markers and regulatory mechanisms in ovarian carcinoma[J]. Ukr Biochem J, 2014, 86(4): 36–50. DOI:10.15407/ubj86.04.036
[2] LU K H. Screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women[J]. JAMA, 2018, 319(6): 557–558. DOI:10.1001/jama.2017.21894
[3] KUMARI S. Serum biomarker based algorithms in diagnosis of ovarian cancer:A review[J]. Indian J Clin Biochem, 2018, 33(4): 382–386. DOI:10.1007/s12291-018-0786-2
[4] MOORE R G, MCMEEIN D S, BROWN A K, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 112(1): 40–46. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.031
[5] LYCKE M, KRISTJANSDOTTIR B, SUNDFELDT K. A multicenter clinical trial validating the performance of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm and risk of malignancy index[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2018, 151(1): 159–165. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.08.025
[6] CHAN K K, CHEN C A, NAM J H, et al. The use of HE4 in the prediction of ovarian cancer in Asian women with a pelvic mass[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 128(2): 239–244. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.09.034
[7] ROMAGNOLO C, LEON A E, FABRICIO A S C, et al. HE4, CA125 and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) as diagnostic tools for ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass:An Italian multicenter study[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2016, 141(2): 303–311. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.016
[8] JEONG T D, CHO E J, KO D H, et al. A new strategy for calculating the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm(ROMA)[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2017, 55(8): 1209–1214. DOI:10.1515/cclm-2016-0582
[9] SANDRI M T, BOTTARI F, FRANCHI D, et al. Comparison of HE4, CA125 and ROMA algorithm in women with a pelvic mass:correlation with pathological outcome[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 128(2): 233–238. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.026
[10] CRADIC K W, LASHO M A, ALGECIRAS-SCHIMNICH A. Validation of the cut-points recommended for ROMA using the roche elecsys CA125 and HE4 assays[J]. Ann Clin Lab Sci, 2018, 48(1): 90–93.
[11] HENDERSON J T, WEBBER E M, SAWAYA G F. Screening for ovarian cancer:updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force[J]. JAMA, 2018, 319(6): 595–606. DOI:10.1001/jama.2017.21421
[12] IONESCU C A, MATEI A, NAVOLAN D, et al. Correlation of ultrasound features and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm score for different histopathological subtypes of benign adnexal masses[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018, 97(31): e11762. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000011762
[13] YANG W L, ZHEN L, ROBERT C B. The role of biomarkers in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer[J]. Expert Rev Mol Diagn, 2017, 17(6): 577–591. DOI:10.1080/14737159.2017.1326820
[14] WEI S, LI H, ZHANG B. The diagnostic value of serum HE4 and CA-125 and ROMA index in ovarian cancer[J]. Biomed Rep, 2016, 5(1): 41–44. DOI:10.3892/br.2016.682
[15] MOORE R G, MILLER M C, DISILVESTRO P, et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with a pelvic mass[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 118(2 Pt 1): 280–288.
[16] LIN J, QIN J, SANGVATANAKUL V. Human epididymis protein 4 for differential diagnosis between benign gynecologic disease and ovarian cancer:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2013, 167(1): 81–85. DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.10.036
[17] ANTON C, CARVALHO F M, OLIVEIRA E I, et al. A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses[J]. Clinics(Sao Paulo), 2012, 67(5): 437–441.
[18] SHEN F X, LU S M, PENG Y B, et al. Performance of ROMA based on Architect CA125Ⅱ and HE4 values in Chinese women presenting with a pelvic mass:A multicenter prospective study[J]. Clin Chim Acta, 2017, 471: 119–125. DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2017.05.029
[19] BANDIERA E, ROMANI C, SPECCHIA C, et al. Serum human epididymis protein 4 and risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm as new diagnostic and prognostic tools for epithelial ovarian cancer management[J]. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2011, 20(12): 2496–2506. DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0635
[20] DAYYANI F, UHLIG S, COLSON B, et al. Diagnostic performance of risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm against CA125 and HE4 in connection with ovarian cancer:A meta-analysis[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2016, 26(9): 1586–1593. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000804
[21] 冯艾, 张琳, 陈艳炯. 不同绝经状态女性血清HE4、CA125和ROMA指数在卵巢癌诊断中的意义[J]. 西安交通大学学报:医学版, 2018, 39(1): 78–83.
[22] MOLINA R, ESCUDERO J M, AUGÉ J M, et al. HE4:a novel tumour marker for ovarian cancer:comparison with CA125 and ROMA algorithm in patients with gynaecological diseases[J]. Tumour Biol, 2011, 32(6): 1087–1095. DOI:10.1007/s13277-011-0204-3