The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass
Open accessAbstract
Introduction Patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have improved outcomes when cared for at centers experienced in the management of EOC. The objective of this trial was to validate a predictive model to assess the risk for EOC in women with a pelvic mass. Methods Women diagnosed with a pelvic mass and scheduled to have surgery were enrolled on a multicenter prospective study. Preoperative serum levels of HE4 and CA125 were measured. Separate logistic regression algorithms for premenopausal and postmenopausal women were utilized to categorize patients into low and high risk groups for EOC. Results Twelve sites enrolled 531 evaluable patients with 352 benign tumors, 129 EOC, 22 LMP tumors, 6 non EOC and 22 non ovarian cancers. The postmenopausal group contained 150 benign cases of which 112 were classified as low risk giving a specificity of 75.0% (95% CI 66.9-81.4), and 111 EOC and 6 LMP tumors of which 108 were classified as high risk giving a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI=85.9-96.4). The premenopausal group had 202 benign cases of which 151 were classified as low risk providing a specificity of 74.8% (95% CI=68.2--80.6), and 18 EOC and 16 LMP tumors of which 26 were classified as high risk, providing a sensitivity of 76.5% (95% CI=58.8--89.3). Conclusion An algorithm utilizing HE4 and CA125 successfully classified patients into high and low risk groups with 93.8% of EOC correctly classified as high risk. This model can be used to effectively triage patients to centers of excellence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics
On behalf of Topic Group ‘Evaluating diagnostic tests and prediction models’ of the STRATOS initiative, Van Calster, B., McLernon, D. J., van Smeden, M., Wynants, L., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7 · Cited by 2,650
Lheureux, S., Gourley, C., Vergote, I., & Oza, A. M. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32552-2 · Cited by 1,919
Van Calster, B., Van Hoorde, K., Valentin, L., Testa, A. C., Fischerova, D., Van Holsbeke, C., Savelli, L., Franchi, D., Epstein, E., Kaijser, J., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g5920 · Cited by 510
Updates and New Options in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Treatment
Kurnit, K. C., Fleming, G. F., & Lengyel, E. (2021) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004173 · Cited by 322
Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer
Zhang, R., Siu, M. K. Y., Ngan, H. Y. S., & Chan, K. K. L. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms231912041 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, R. G., McMeekin, D. S., Brown, A. K., DiSilvestro, P., Miller, M. C., Allard, W. J., Gajewski, W., Kurman, R., Bast, R. C., & Skates, S. J.
- Venue
- Gynecologic Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 40-46
- ISSN
- 0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980181125
- Cited by
- 875
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.031
- The paper
- Moore, R. G., McMeekin, D. S., Brown, A. K., DiSilvestro, P., Miller, M. C., Allard, W. J., Gajewski, W., Kurman, R., Bast, R. C., & Skates, S. J. (2009). A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecologic Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.031
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.