Background: Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is described as a useful new biomarker in ovarian cancer. As HE4 is neither tumor nor organ specifi c, we intensively investigated the occurrence of this protein in female and male patients with various benign and malignant diseases in order to avoid misinterpretation and to identify potential additional clinical relevance. Methods:We retrospectively investigated HE4 (ARCHITECT ® , Abbott Diagnostics, US) in the sera of 205 healthy individuals, 654 patients with benign disorders and 720 patients with cancer before initial treatment. Results:The lowest concentrations of HE4 were observed in healthy men (median 26.2 pmol/L) followed by healthy women (median 40.4 pmol/L). In benign diseases, highest HE4 concentrations were seen in both women and men with renal failure (women, median 1041 pmol/L; men, median 1368 pmol/L). In women, the highest HE4 levels in malignant diseases were observed in ovarian cancer (median 242 pmol/l), whereas the highest HE4 concentrations in men occurred in lung cancer (median 89.2 pmol/L). The area under the curve (AUC) of HE4 in women was highest in ovarian cancer and borderline tumors as compared to benign gynecological disorders (88.9 % ), with a sensitivity of 67.4 % at 95 % specifi city. Also, signifi cantly elevated concentrations of HE4 with reference to the respective group of benign diseases were observed

Background: Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is the best known single tumor marker for ovarian cancer (OC). We investigated whether the additional information of the human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) improves diagnostic accuracy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed preoperative sera of 109 healthy women, 285 patients with benign ovarian masses (cystadenoma: ns78, leimyoma: ns66, endometriosis: ns 52, functional ovarian cysts: ns79, other: ns10), 16 low malignant potential (LMP) ovarian tumors and 125 OC (stage I: 22, II: 15, III: 78, IV: 10). CA125 was analyzed using the ARCHITECT system, HE4 using the ARCHI-TECT(a) system and EIA(e) technology additionally. Results: The lowest concentrations of CA125 and HE4 were observed in healthy individuals, followed by patients with benign adnexal masses and patients with LMP tumors and OC. The area under the curve (AUC) for the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses of CA125 alone was not significantly different to HE4 alone in premenopausal (CA125: 86.7, HE4(a): 82.6, HE4(e): 81.6% p)0.05) but significantly different in postmenopausal wCA125: 93.4 vs. HE4(a): 88.3 ps0.023 and vs. HE4(e): 87.8% ps0.012x patients. For stage I OC, HE4 as a single marker was superior to CA125, which was the best single marker in stage II-IV. The combination of CA125 and HE4 using risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) gained the highest sensitivity at 95% specificity for the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses wCA125: 70.9, HE4(a): 67.4, HE4(e): 66.0, ROMA(a): 76.6

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of cancer antigen (CA) 125 and CA 72-4 in patients with ovarian borderline tumor (BOT). Methods: All women diagnosed and treated for BOT at our institution between 1981 and 2008 were included into this retrospective study (ns101). Preoperatively collected serum samples were analyzed for CA 125 (Architect, Abbott and Elecsys, Roche) and CA 72-4 (Elecsys, Roche) with reference to clinical data and compared to healthy women (ns109) and ovarian cancer patients (ns130). Results: With a median of 34.7 U/mL (range 18.1-385.0 U/mL) for CA 125 and 2.3 U/mL (range 0.2-277.0 U/mL) for CA 72-4, serum tumor markers in BOT patients were significantly elevated as compared to healthy women with a median CA 125 of 13.5 U/mL (range 4.0-49.7 U/mL) and median CA 72-4 of 0.8 U/mL (range 0.2-20.6 U/mL). In addition, there was a significant difference compared with ovarian cancer patients who showed a median CA 125 of 401.5 U/mL (range 12.5-35,813 U/mL), but no difference was observed for CA 72-4 (median 3.9 U/mL, range 0.3-10,068 U/mL). Patients with a pT1a tumor stage had significantly lower values of CA 125 but not of CA 72-4 compared with individuals with higher tumor stages (median CA 125 29.9 U/mL for pT1a vs. 50.9 U/mL for )pT1a; ps0.014). There was a trend for increased concentrations of CA 125 but not of CA 72-4 in the presence of ascites, endometriosis or peritoneal implants at primary diagnosis. With respect to the prognostic value of CA 125 or CA 72-4, CA 125

No advantage could be found in the treatment with Cetuximab monotherapy in patients with advanced cervical cancer in this study. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the significance of Cetuximab in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer.

No abstract