The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The role of CA125 in clinical practice
Open accessAbstract
Background: CA125 is a high molecular weight glycoprotein, which is expressed by a large proportion of epithelial ovarian cancers. The sensitivity and specificity of CA125 are poor and there are no guidelines produced by the Royal College of Pathologists or the Association of Clinical Biochemists to aid clinicians and laboratories in its most appropriate use. Aim: To identify the patient population having a CA125 measurement and to determine its contribution to individual patient management. Methods: A retrospective case note audit looking at patients who had a CA125 measurement performed between April 2000 and April 2002. Results: The study comprised 799 patients; 751 (94%) were female and 48 (6%) male; 221 (29%) females and 22 (46%) males had an abnormal result. CA125 was mainly used to investigate a wide range of signs and symptoms, and few tests were for follow up or screening of ovarian cancer. In female patients having a CA125 for suspicion of malignancy/ovarian cancer, only 39 (20%) of the abnormal results were caused by ovarian cancer. False positive results were largely caused by another malignancy (48 cases; 26%), benign ovarian disease (26 cases; 14%), and benign gynaecological conditions, particularly leiomyomas (18 cases; 9%). The specificity of CA125 for ovarian cancer increased with concentrations >1000 kU/litre. Conclusions: These results confirm the high false positive rate and poor sensitivity and specificity associated with CA125. The substantial inappropriate usage of CA125 has led to results that are useless to the clinician, have cost implications, and add to patient anxiety and clinical uncertainty.
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
Smith, R. A., Andrews, K. S., Brooks, D., Fedewa, S. A., Manassaram‐Baptiste, D., Saslow, D., Brawley, O. W., & Wender, R. C. (2017) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21392 · Cited by 719
Hallmarks of glycosylation in cancer
Munkley, J., & Elliott, D. J. (2016) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.8155 · Cited by 521
Smith, R. A., Manassaram‐Baptiste, D., Brooks, D., Doroshenk, M., Fedewa, S., Saslow, D., Brawley, O. W., & Wender, R. (2015) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21261 · Cited by 451
Smith, R. A., Brooks, D., Cokkinides, V., Saslow, D., & Brawley, O. W. (2013) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21174 · Cited by 422
Sweetening the Pot: Adding Glycosylation to the Biomarker Discovery Equation
Drake, P. M., Cho, W., Li, B., Prakobphol, A., Johansen, E., Anderson, N. L., Regnier, F. E., Gibson, B. W., & Fisher, S. J. (2010) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2009.136333 · Cited by 302
Metadata
- Authors
- Moss, E. L., Hollingworth, J., & Reynolds, T. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Pathology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-02-25
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 308-312
- ISSN
- 0021-9746 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-4146
- OpenAlex
- W2149034648
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The role of CA125 in clinical practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jcp.2004.018077
- The paper
- Moss, E. L., Hollingworth, J., & Reynolds, T. M. (2005). The role of CA125 in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2004.018077
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.