Monitoring Ovarian Cancer with HMFG2 and CA125
Author Information
Author(s): J. Fisken, J.E. Roulston, C. Sturgeon, R.A. Badley, I. Jonrup, L. Aspinall, R.C.F. Leonard
Primary Institution: University Departments of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Oncology, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh
Hypothesis
Does HMFG2 provide additional value in monitoring epithelial ovarian cancer compared to CA125?
Conclusion
HMFG2 does not perform as well as CA125 in monitoring epithelial ovarian cancer and is unlikely to significantly impact patient management.
Supporting Evidence
- 45% of stage I, 54% of stage II, 61% of stage III, and 75% of stage IV patients had elevated HMFG2.
- HMFG2 had a sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 83% for disease at second-look laparotomy.
- HMFG2 provided a lead time to clinical relapse in 47% of patients who responded to therapy.
Takeaway
This study looked at a new test called HMFG2 for checking ovarian cancer, but it turns out that the old test, CA125, is still better.
Methodology
Serum HMFG2 was assayed in 880 samples from 215 ovarian cancer patients using an ELISA method.
Limitations
HMFG2 was less sensitive for small volume disease and provided additional information only in a few patients with advanced disease.
Participant Demographics
Patients had a mean age of 59 years at diagnosis, with a range from 23 to 81 years.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.005
Statistical Significance
p<0.005
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website