Introduction: Many women with benign pelvic masses, suspected of ovarian cancer, are unnecessarily referred for treatment at specialized centers. There is an unmet clinical need to improve diagnostic assessment in these patients. Our objective was to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of human epididymis protein (HE4) for diagnosing ovarian cancer and to compare the performance of HE4 with that of cancer antigen 125 (CA125). Material and methods:We searched PubMed, Ovid and Scopus using search terms for "pelvic masses" and "HE4", to identify studies that evaluated HE4 for diagnosing malignant ovarian masses, in adult women presenting with a pelvic mass, suspected of ovarian cancer, and with diagnosis confirmed by histopathology. Screening, data extraction and Risk of Bias assessment with the QUADAS-2 tool were done independently by two authors. We performed a meta-analysis of the accuracy of HE4 and CA125 using a random-effects bivariate logit-normal model. A study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020158073).Results: In the 17 eligible studies, which included 3404 patients, ovarian cancer prevalence ranged from 15% to 71%. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous. All studies seemed to have recruited patients in specialized settings. A meta-analysis of seven HE4 studies resulted in a mean sensitivity of 79.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.1%-83.8%) and a mean specificity of 84.1% (95% CI 79.6%-87.8%), for cut-off values of 67-72 pmol/L. Based on eight studies, the mean sensitivity of CA125 was 81.4% (95% CI 74.6%-86.2%) and the mean specificity was 56.8% (95% CI 47.9%-65.4%), at a cut-off of 35 U/ml. Given a 40% ovarian cancer prevalence, the positive predictive value (PPV) for HE4 would be 76.9% (71.9%-81.2%) vs 55.6% (50.2%-60.9%) for CA125. The negative predictive value (NPV) would be 85.9 (82.8%-88.6%) and 81.9% (76.2%-86.4%), respectively. At a 15% prevalence, the NPV would be 95.8%The search string consisted of a variety of search terms for "pelvic cysts or tumors" and "human epididymis protein 4" (Appendix S1).The search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid) (95% CI 94.4%-96.7%) for HE4 and 94.4% (95% CI 92.3%-96.0%) for CA125. The PPV would be 46.9% (40.4%-53.4%) and 24.9% (21.1%-29.2%), respectively.Conclusions: HE4 had higher specificity and similar sensitivity compared with CA125.At high prevalence, PPV was also higher for HE4, but at low prevalence, it had a similar NPV to CA125. The field would benefit from studies conducted in general settings.

ObjectiveSudden cardiac death (SCD) in families with premature atherosclerosis (PAS) is generally attributed to lethal arrhythmias during myocardial infarction. Yet, such arrhythmias may also arise from non-ischaemic inherited susceptibility. We aimed to test the hypothesis that Brugada syndrome is prevalent among families with PAS in which SCD occurred.MethodsWe investigated all patients who underwent Ajmaline testing to screen them for Brugada syndrome because of unexplained familial SCD in the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between 2004 and 2017. We divided the cohort into two groups based on a positive family history for PAS. All individuals with a positive Ajmaline test were screened for SCN5A-mutation.ResultsIn families with SCD and PAS, the prevalence of positive Ajmaline test was similar to families with SCD alone (22% vs 19%). The number of SCD cases in families with SCD and PAS was higher (2.34 vs 1.63, p<0.001) and SCD occurred at older age in families with SCD and PAS (42 years vs 36 years, p<0.001), while the prevalence of SCN5A mutations was lower (3% vs 18%, p<0.05).ConclusionsBrugada syndrome has a similar prevalence in families with SCD and PAS as in families with SCD alone, although SCD in families with SCD and PAS occurs in more family members and at older age, while SCN5A mutations in these families are rare. This suggests that the SCD occurring in families with PAS could be related to an underlying genetic predisposition of arrhythmias, with a different genetic origin. It could be considered to screen families with SCD and PAS for Brugada syndrome.

BackgroundPresence of residual disease after cytoreductive surgery is an important negative prognostic factor for patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Surgery is of limited benefit when the diameter of residual disease is >1 cm. Residual disease is difficult to predict before surgery. The multivariate model Cancer Ovarii Non-invasive Assessment of Treatment Strategy (CONATS) index, based on serum biomarker HE4, age, and World Health Organization performance status, predicted no visible residual disease in patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85. The AUC of predicting residual disease >1 cm was not reported, although this can be of importance for pre-operative decision making, especially in fragile patients. We tested this model for predicting residual disease >1 cm in patients undergoing interval cytoreduction.MethodsWe retrospectively included patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent interval cytoreduction between January 2010 and December 2017 in two tertiary centers in the Netherlands. HE4 was measured with electrochemiluminescence in pre-operative samples. The CONATS index was used to predict residual disease. AUCs were calculated to predict residual disease >1 cm.ResultsA total of 273 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 64 (11) years. Median number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 3 (range 3–6) and the most common regimen used consisted of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Before interval cytoreduction, 19 patients (7%) showed complete response to chemotherapy, 251 patients (92%) showed partial response, and 3 patients (1%) showed stable disease at imaging. Following surgery, 232 patients (85%) had residual disease ≤1 cm and 41 patients (15%) had residual disease >1 cm. The AUC was 0.80 for predicting residual disease >1 cm. In patients ≥70 years of age the AUC was 0.82.ConclusionThe CONATS index predicts surgical outcome after interval cytoreduction and is useful in counseling patients about the chance of whether an optimal interval cytoreduction can be achieved. This could be especially helpful in counseling elderly patients in whom surgery has a high risk of complications.

No abstract