Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan 10;18(1):123.
doi: 10.3390/ijms18010123.

Diagnostic Value of Serum Angiogenesis Markers in Ovarian Cancer Using Multiplex Immunoassay

Affiliations

Diagnostic Value of Serum Angiogenesis Markers in Ovarian Cancer Using Multiplex Immunoassay

Agnieszka Horala et al. Int J Mol Sci. .

Abstract

As cancer development involves pathological vessel formation, 16 angiogenesis markers were evaluated as potential ovarian cancer (OC) biomarkers. Blood samples collected from 172 patients were divided based on histopathological result: OC (n = 38), borderline ovarian tumours (n = 6), non-malignant ovarian tumours (n = 62), healthy controls (n = 50) and 16 patients were excluded. Sixteen angiogenesis markers were measured using BioPlex Pro Human Cancer Biomarker Panel 1 immunoassay. Additionally, concentrations of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) were measured in patients with adnexal masses using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. In the comparison between OC vs. non-OC, osteopontin achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 (sensitivity 69%, specificity 78%). Multimarker models based on four to six markers (basic fibroblast growth factor-FGF-basic, follistatin, hepatocyte growth factor-HGF, osteopontin, platelet-derived growth factor AB/BB-PDGF-AB/BB, leptin) demonstrated higher discriminatory ability (AUC 0.80-0.81) than a single marker (AUC 0.79). When comparing OC with benign ovarian tumours, six markers had statistically different expression (osteopontin, leptin, follistatin, PDGF-AB/BB, HGF, FGF-basic). Osteopontin was the best single angiogenesis marker (AUC 0.825, sensitivity 72%, specificity 82%). A three-marker panel consisting of osteopontin, CA125 and HE4 better discriminated the groups (AUC 0.958) than HE4 or CA125 alone (AUC 0.941 and 0.932, respectively). Osteopontin should be further investigated as a potential biomarker in OC screening and differential diagnosis of ovarian tumours. Adding osteopontin to a panel of already used biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) significantly improves differential diagnosis between malignant and benign ovarian tumours.

Keywords: angiogenesis; biomarkers; ovarian cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Multivariate receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve representing correlation between serum concentrations of FGF-basic, follistatin, osteopontin and PDGF-AB/BB in ovarian cancer patients and control group (healthy subjects and patients with benign ovarian tumours).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Multivariate receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves representing correlations between concentrations of CA125, HE4, osteopontin, follistatin, PDGF-AB/BB in differentiating non-malignant ovarian tumours vs. ovarian cancer; Models 2 and 3 are mostly based on CA125, HE4 and osteopontin; Model 2 allowed to obtain an AUC of 0.936, while the model 3, in which osteopontin is more frequently selected, increased the AUC to 0.951; The use of additional angiogenesis markers (models 4 and 5) did not improve the diagnostic accuracy.

References

    1. Ferlay J., Shin H., Bray F., Forman D., Mathers C., Parkin D. GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. [(accessed on 1 September 2016)]. Available online: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2010/globocan2008.php.
    1. Heintz A.P.M., Odicino F., Maisonneuve P., Quinn M.A., Benedet J.L., Creasman W.T., Ngan H.Y. S., Pecorelli S., Beller U. Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2006;95:161–192. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(06)60033-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Doubeni C.A., Doubeni A.R., Myers A.E. Diagnosis and Management of Ovarian Cancer. Am. Fam. Physician. 2016;93:937–944. - PubMed
    1. Enakpene C.A., Omigbodun A.O., Goecke T.W., Odukogbe A.-T., Beckmann M.W. Preoperative evaluation and triage of women with suspicious adnexal masses using risk of malignancy index. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2009;35:131–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00869.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kurman R.J., Shih I.-M. The Origin and Pathogenesis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Proposed Unifying Theory. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2010;34:433–443. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181cf3d79. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances