The role of CA125 in clinical practice.

OA: closed
📄 Open PDF View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-28 ⓘ

This audit of 799 patients reveals that CA125 testing yields high false positive rates, often due to benign gynecological conditions like leiomyomas, highlighting its poor specificity for ovarian cancer and frequent inappropriate clinical use.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BackgroundCA125 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.AimTo identify the patient population having a CA125 measurement and to determine its contribution to individual patient management.MethodsA retrospective case note audit looking at patients who had a CA125 measurement performed between April 2000 and April 2002.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThese 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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cited by (1)

Cited by (1)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-09-27T09:11:36.575535+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-09-27T06:17:51.937953+00:00