[Comparison of serum cancer antigen 125, human epididymis protein 4, ROMA, and CPH-I for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in Chinese patients with ovarian mass]

Diagnostic accuracy OA: closed
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-19 ⓘ

This retrospective analysis of 710 women with pelvic masses demonstrates that HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I outperform CA125 in differentiating benign lesions from ovarian cancer.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-19 · read from full text ⓘ

This retrospective study evaluated the diagnostic performance of serum CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors among 719 Chinese patients. The results demonstrated that HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I achieved higher areas under the curve than CA125 for general differential diagnosis, with HE4 and CPH-I showing superior specificity while ROMA offered better sensitivity. For predicting epithelial ovarian cancer specifically, all markers improved their performance metrics, with ROMA and CPH-I maintaining high sensitivity and accuracy compared to CA125. Relevance to endometriosis: listed as one indication for GnRH antagonists, though the paper's main focus is uterine fibroids.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen index (CPH-I) for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases in patients with ovarian mass. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 719 women with pelvic mass, and the performance of preoperative serum levels of CA125 and HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for differential diagnosis of the masses was compared. RESULTS: Of the 710 women analyzed, 531 were diagnosed with benign ovarian lesions, 44 with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs), 119 with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs), and 25 with non-EOCs. In differentiating ovarian cancer (OC) and BOT from benign lesions, the area under the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.854 for HE4, 0.856 for ROMA, 0.854 for CPH-I, and 0.792 for CA125, demonstrating better diagnostic performance of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I than CA125 alone; the diagnostic sensitivity was 56.9% for HE4, 70.2% for CA125, 69.1% for ROMA, and 63.8% for CPH-I; the specificity was the best with HE4 (94.4%) and CPH-I (94.7%). In sub-analysis of EOC vs benign lesions, the AUCs of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I increased to 0.946, 0.947, and 0.943, respectively, all greater than that of CA125 (0.888). In other sub-analyses, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I all showed greater AUCs than CA125 alone. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the accuracy of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I for differentiating malignant from benign ovarian mass, and all these 3 tests show better performance than CA125. Furthermore, HE4 and CPH-I is superior to ROMA and CA125 in terms of specificity, while CA125 and ROMA have better diagnostic sensitivities.
Full text 645 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
南方医科大学学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (12): 1393-1401.doi: 10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2019.12.02 龚时鹏,陈咏宁,张雅迪,李婵媛,江启帆 摘要: 目的 比较CA125、HE4、ROMA、CPH-I在鉴别卵巢良恶性肿瘤中的应用价值。方法 回顾性分析719例卵巢肿瘤患者的术前血清CA125、HE4水平及基于二者计算的ROMA和CPH-I。结果 在所有符合条件的患者中,531例为卵巢良性肿瘤,44例 为交界性卵巢肿瘤,119例为上皮性卵巢癌,25例为非上皮性卵巢癌。对于卵巢良恶性肿瘤的鉴别,HE4、ROMA、CPH-I的曲线下面积分别为0.854、0.856、0.854,均优于CA125(0.792),CA125、HE4、ROMA、CPH-I的敏感性分别为70.2%、56.9%、69.1%、63.8%,特异性分别为72.9%、94.4%、87.6%、94.7%。在预测上皮性卵巢癌时,CA125、HE4、ROMA、CPH-I的曲线下面积和敏感性分别增加到0.888、0.946、0.947、0.943和84.0%、79.8%、87.4%、84.9%。在其他不同人群分析中,HE4、ROMA和CPH-I的曲线下面积均优于CA125。结论 HE4、ROMA和CPH-I在鉴别卵巢良恶性肿瘤时的效能比CA125更高。此外,HE4和CPH-I在特异性方面优于CA125和ROMA,后两者则具有更好的敏感性。

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

MeSH descriptors

Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial Ovarian Neoplasms Algorithms Biomarkers, Tumor CA-125 Antigen Female Humans Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial Proteins Retrospective Studies WAP Four-Disulfide Core Domain Protein 2

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-18T09:30:06.152893+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:26:25.435920+00:00