[Comparison of serum cancer antigen 125, human epididymis protein 4, ROMA, and CPH-I for diagnosis of ovarian cancer in Chinese patients with ovarian mass].

Shipeng G, Yongning C, Yadi Z, Chanyuan LI, Qifan J
Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2019 · doi:10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2019.12.02 · PMID:31907150 · PMC6942985
OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-19 ⓘ

This retrospective analysis of 710 women with pelvic masses demonstrates that HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I outperform CA125 in differentiating benign lesions from ovarian cancer.

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

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-19 · read from full text ⓘ

This retrospective study evaluated the diagnostic performance of serum CA125, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors among 719 Chinese patients. The results demonstrated that HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I achieved higher areas under the curve than CA125 for general differential diagnosis, with HE4 and CPH-I showing superior specificity while ROMA offered better sensitivity. For predicting epithelial ovarian cancer specifically, all markers improved their performance metrics, with ROMA and CPH-I maintaining high sensitivity and accuracy compared to CA125. Relevance to endometriosis: listed as one indication for GnRH antagonists, though the paper's main focus is uterine fibroids.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the performance of serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Copenhagen index (CPH-I) for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases in patients with ovarian mass.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of 719 women with pelvic mass, and the performance of preoperative serum levels of CA125 and HE4, ROMA and CPH-I for differential diagnosis of the masses was compared.ResultsOf the 710 women analyzed, 531 were diagnosed with benign ovarian lesions, 44 with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs), 119 with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs), and 25 with non-EOCs. In differentiating ovarian cancer (OC) and BOT from benign lesions, the area under the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.854 for HE4, 0.856 for ROMA, 0.854 for CPH-I, and 0.792 for CA125, demonstrating better diagnostic performance of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I than CA125 alone; the diagnostic sensitivity was 56.9% for HE4, 70.2% for CA125, 69.1% for ROMA, and 63.8% for CPH-I; the specificity was the best with HE4 (94.4%) and CPH-I (94.7%). In sub-analysis of EOC vs benign lesions, the AUCs of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I increased to 0.946, 0.947, and 0.943, respectively, all greater than that of CA125 (0.888). In other sub-analyses, HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I all showed greater AUCs than CA125 alone.ConclusionsThis study confirms the accuracy of HE4, ROMA, and CPH-I for differentiating malignant from benign ovarian mass, and all these 3 tests show better performance than CA125. Furthermore, HE4 and CPH-I is superior to ROMA and CA125 in terms of specificity, while CA125 and ROMA have better diagnostic sensitivities.
Full text 645 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
南方医科大学学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (12): 1393-1401.doi: 10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2019.12.02 龚时鹏，陈咏宁，张雅迪，李婵媛，江启帆 摘要： 目的 比较CA125、HE4、ROMA、CPH-I在鉴别卵巢良恶性肿瘤中的应用价值。方法 回顾性分析719例卵巢肿瘤患者的术前血清CA125、HE4水平及基于二者计算的ROMA和CPH-I。结果 在所有符合条件的患者中，531例为卵巢良性肿瘤，44例 为交界性卵巢肿瘤，119例为上皮性卵巢癌，25例为非上皮性卵巢癌。对于卵巢良恶性肿瘤的鉴别，HE4、ROMA、CPH-I的曲线下面积分别为0.854、0.856、0.854，均优于CA125（0.792），CA125、HE4、ROMA、CPH-I的敏感性分别为70.2%、56.9%、69.1%、63.8%，特异性分别为72.9%、94.4%、87.6%、94.7%。在预测上皮性卵巢癌时，CA125、HE4、ROMA、CPH-I的曲线下面积和敏感性分别增加到0.888、0.946、0.947、0.943和84.0%、79.8%、87.4%、84.9%。在其他不同人群分析中，HE4、ROMA和CPH-I的曲线下面积均优于CA125。结论 HE4、ROMA和CPH-I在鉴别卵巢良恶性肿瘤时的效能比CA125更高。此外，HE4和CPH-I在特异性方面优于CA125和ROMA，后两者则具有更好的敏感性。

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-09-20T09:27:46.357103+00:00