Clinical Applicability of Tissue Polypeptide Antigen and CA-125 in Gynecological Malignancies.
CA 125
TPA
diagnosis
ovarian cancer
tumor marker
uterine cancer
Journal
Biomedicines
ISSN: 2227-9059
Titre abrégé: Biomedicines
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101691304
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Nov 2023
02 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
27
08
2023
revised:
26
10
2023
accepted:
30
10
2023
medline:
25
11
2023
pubmed:
25
11
2023
entrez:
25
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nowadays there still is no sufficient screening tool for ovarian and uterine cancer. The current study aimed to investigate whether cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) or the combination of both markers are able to act as screening tools for ovarian or uterine cancer. A total of 275 blood samples from different cohorts (ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, benign control group) were prospectively drawn and analyzed. Established biomarkers TPA and CA-125 showed elevated serum concentrations in patients with malignant tumors as compared to healthy women and women with benign diseases. In ROC curve analyses, both biomarkers were well able to discriminate between malignant and healthy, benign or overall non-malignant cases in the whole sample, with AUCs of 0.842 and above. While TPA was the best diagnostic marker in patients with uterine cancer, CA 125 was the best in patients with ovarian cancer. TPA and CA-125 both showed promising results for the detection of gynecologic malignancies. The combination of CA-125 and TPA did not improve sensitivity in comparison to single markers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Nowadays there still is no sufficient screening tool for ovarian and uterine cancer.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The current study aimed to investigate whether cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) or the combination of both markers are able to act as screening tools for ovarian or uterine cancer.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 275 blood samples from different cohorts (ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, benign control group) were prospectively drawn and analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Established biomarkers TPA and CA-125 showed elevated serum concentrations in patients with malignant tumors as compared to healthy women and women with benign diseases. In ROC curve analyses, both biomarkers were well able to discriminate between malignant and healthy, benign or overall non-malignant cases in the whole sample, with AUCs of 0.842 and above. While TPA was the best diagnostic marker in patients with uterine cancer, CA 125 was the best in patients with ovarian cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TPA and CA-125 both showed promising results for the detection of gynecologic malignancies. The combination of CA-125 and TPA did not improve sensitivity in comparison to single markers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38001961
pii: biomedicines11112960
doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11112960
pmc: PMC10669758
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Lancet. 2016 Mar 5;387(10022):945-956
pubmed: 26707054
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Nov;21(11):1902-12
pubmed: 22962405
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Dec;20(24):5113-5116
pubmed: 28051260
Cancer Biol Med. 2017 Feb;14(1):9-32
pubmed: 28443200
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011 Sep;4(9):1356-9
pubmed: 21893498
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Aug;16(4):435-439
pubmed: 27562869
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec;103(3):924-31
pubmed: 16842844
J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 17;9(6):
pubmed: 32560580
Afr Health Sci. 2018 Dec;18(4):972-978
pubmed: 30766562
JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2295-303
pubmed: 21642681
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Sep;14(9):1134-63
pubmed: 27587625
Int J Oncol. 2021 Jul;59(1):
pubmed: 34132354
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Jan;156(1):75-6
pubmed: 3467595
J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Sep;30(5):e70
pubmed: 31328454
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;867:229-44
pubmed: 26530369
Lancet. 2014 Oct 11;384(9951):1376-88
pubmed: 24767708
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Jan;26(1):43-51
pubmed: 26588231
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Dec 07;67(48):1333-1338
pubmed: 30521505
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1994 May;4(3):156-160
pubmed: 11578400
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Sep 30;12:9363-9374
pubmed: 33061625
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Apr;79(4):511-4
pubmed: 1553167
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Sep 15;22(18):4664-75
pubmed: 27060155
Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Apr;49(1):56-60
pubmed: 8387061
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012 Oct;164(2):191-5
pubmed: 22727919
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;51(3):293-303
pubmed: 28639753
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012 Aug;5(8):1015-24
pubmed: 22750949
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2009;30(4):412-4
pubmed: 19761133
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001 May;10(5):489-93
pubmed: 11352859
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010 Apr;281(4):709-15
pubmed: 19777250
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Aug;110(2):196-201
pubmed: 18495222
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Oct;15(10):1906-13
pubmed: 17035398
Cancer Treat Rev. 1995 May;21(3):215-45
pubmed: 7656266
J Pers Med. 2021 Oct 29;11(11):
pubmed: 34834467
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Dec 17;13(24):
pubmed: 34944963
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):1-5
pubmed: 24219974
JAMA. 2018 Feb 13;319(6):595-606
pubmed: 29450530
Acta Oncol. 2019 Mar;58(3):342-352
pubmed: 30614360