The diagnostic performance of CA125 for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancer in primary care: A population-based cohort study

Garth Funston, Willie Hamilton, Gary Abel, Emma J Crosbie, Brian Rous, Fiona M Walter, Garth Funston, Willie Hamilton, Gary Abel, Emma J Crosbie, Brian Rous, Fiona M Walter

Abstract

Background: The serum biomarker cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is widely used as an investigation for possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women presenting to primary care. However, its diagnostic performance in this setting is unknown. We evaluated the performance of CA125 in primary care for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancers.

Methods and findings: We studied women in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink with a CA125 test performed between 1 May 2011-31 December 2014. Ovarian and non-ovarian cancers diagnosed in the year following CA125 testing were identified from the cancer registry. Women were categorized by age: <50 years and ≥50 years. Conventional measures of test diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value, were calculated for the standard CA125 cut-off (≥35 U/ml). The probability of a woman having cancer at each CA125 level between 1-1,000 U/ml was estimated using logistic regression. Cancer probability was also estimated on the basis of CA125 level and age in years using logistic regression. We identified CA125 levels equating to a 3% estimated cancer probability: the "risk threshold" at which the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advocates urgent specialist cancer investigation. A total of 50,780 women underwent CA125 testing; 456 (0.9%) were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 1,321 (2.6%) with non-ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml, 3.4% aged <50 years and 15.2% aged ≥50 years had ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml who were aged ≥50 years and who did not have ovarian cancer, 20.4% were diagnosed with a non-ovarian cancer. A CA125 value of 53 U/ml equated to a 3% probability of ovarian cancer overall. This varied by age, with a value of 104 U/ml in 40-year-old women and 32 U/ml in 70-year-old women equating to a 3% probability. The main limitations of our study were that we were unable to determine why CA125 tests were performed and that our findings are based solely on UK primary care data, so caution is need in extrapolating them to other healthcare settings.

Conclusions: CA125 is a useful test for ovarian cancer detection in primary care, particularly in women ≥50 years old. Clinicians should also consider non-ovarian cancers in women with high CA125 levels, especially if ovarian cancer has been excluded, in order to prevent diagnostic delay. Our results enable clinicians and patients to determine the estimated probability of ovarian cancer and all cancers at any CA125 level and age, which can be used to guide individual decisions on the need for further investigation or referral.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Flow diagram illustrating the identification…
Fig 1. Flow diagram illustrating the identification of the study cohort and application of exclusion criteria.
UTS is a quality metric, provided by CPRD, which indicates if the data from a GP practice are of sufficient quality to be used in research [14]. CA125, cancer antigen 125; CPRD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink; NCRAS, National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service; UTS, up to standard.
Fig 2. Relationship between CA125 level and…
Fig 2. Relationship between CA125 level and estimated probability of ovarian cancer, invasive ovarian cancer, and all cancers.
Estimated probabilities up to 8% are shown for ovarian cancer, invasive ovarian cancer, and all cancers. CA125 levels that correspond to the closest integer probabilities of 3% are indicated. The probabilities, which equate to a CA125 level of 35 U/ml, are also marked. Confidence intervals (95%) are displayed. Graphs showing probabilities at an extended range of CA125 values (up to 500 U/ml) for ovarian cancer, invasive ovarian cancer, and all cancer are included in S1 Fig, S2 Fig, and S3 Fig, respectively. Data used to construct these graphs (up to a CA125 level of 1,000 U/ml) are available via the University of Cambridge Repository [27]. CA125, cancer antigen 125; CI, confidence interval.
Fig 3. Relationship between CA125 level and…
Fig 3. Relationship between CA125 level and estimated probability of ovarian cancer for women of different ages.
Estimated ovarian cancer probabilities are shown in relation to CA125 level for women of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 years of age. CA125 levels that correspond to the closest integer probabilities of 3% are indicated in red. Confidence intervals (95%) are displayed. Data used to construct these graphs (up to a CA125 level of 1,000 U/ml) are available via the University of Cambridge Repository [27]. CA125, cancer antigen 125.

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492
    1. Cancer Research UK. Ovarian cancer survival statistics. [cited 20 May 2020]. Available:
    1. Nagle CM, Francis JE, Nelson AE, Zorbas H, Luxford K, de Fazio A, et al. Reducing Time to Diagnosis Does Not Improve Outcomes for Women With Symptomatic Ovarian Cancer: A Report From the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2253–2258. 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.2164
    1. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to Diagnosis 2006–2016 by year, V2.1a. 2019 [cited 2020 May 21]. Available from:
    1. Hamilton W, Peters TJ, Bankhead C, Sharp D. Risk of ovarian cancer in women with symptoms in primary care: population based case-control study. BMJ. 2009;339: b2998 10.1136/bmj.b2998
    1. Sundar S, Neal R, Kehoe E. Diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BMJ. 2015;351:h5543 10.1136/bmj.h5543
    1. Funston G, Melle VM, Ladegaard Baun M-L, Jensen H, Helpser C, Emery J, et al. Variation in the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of international guidelines. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:1028 10.1186/s12885-019-6211-2
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Ovarian Cancer: The recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer (NICE Clinical Guidelines No. 122). Cardiff (UK); 2011.
    1. Bast RC, Klug TL, John E St., Jenison E, Niloff JM, Lazarus H, et al. A Radioimmunoassay Using a Monoclonal Antibody to Monitor the Course of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:883–887. 10.1056/NEJM198310133091503
    1. Usher-Smith JA, Sharp SJ, Griffin SJ. The spectrum effect in tests for risk prediction, screening, and diagnosis. BMJ. 2016;353:i3139 10.1136/bmj.i3139
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral (NG12). 2015 [cited 2019 Jul 18]. Available from:
    1. Duffy MJ, Bonfrer JM, Kulpa J, Rustin GJS, Soletormos G, Torre GC, et al. CA125 in ovarian cancer: European Group on Tumor Markers guidelines for clinical use. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:679–691. 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.00130.x
    1. Crawford SM, Evans C. Outcome of elevated CA125 values from primary care following implementation of ovarian cancer guidelines. Fam Pract. 2017;28:28.
    1. Herrett E, Gallagher AM, Bhaskaran K, Forbes H, Mathur R, Staa T van, et al. Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:827–836. 10.1093/ije/dyv098
    1. Public Health England. National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS). 2016 [cited 18 Jul 2019]. Available from:
    1. Padmanabhan S, Carty L, Cameron E, Ghosh RE, Williams R, Strongman H. Approach to record linkage of primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink to other health-related patient data: overview and implications. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019;34:91–99. 10.1007/s10654-018-0442-4
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2015;351:h5527.
    1. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001885–e1001885. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885
    1. Prat J. Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124: 1–5. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.10.001
    1. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. Fourth Edition Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.
    1. Watson J, Salisbury C, Banks J, Whiting P, Hamilton W. Predictive value of inflammatory markers for cancer diagnosis in primary care: a prospective cohort study using electronic health records. Br J Cancer. 2019;120:1045–1051. 10.1038/s41416-019-0458-x
    1. Neal RD, Din NU, Hamilton W, Ukoumunne OC, Carter B, Stapley S, et al. Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:584–92. 10.1038/bjc.2013.791
    1. Fischerova D, Zikan M, Dundr P, Cibula D. Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist. 2012;17:1515–33. 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0139
    1. Gilbert L, Basso O, Sampalis J, Karp I, Martins C, Feng J, et al. Assessment of symptomatic women for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer: results from the prospective DOvE pilot project. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:285–291. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70333-3
    1. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies, with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.
    1. Seed P. DIAGT: Stata module to report summary statistics for diagnostic tests compared to true disease status. Statistical Software Components S423401, Boston College Department of Economics; 2010.
    1. Funston G, Hamilton W, Abel G, Crosbie EJ, Rous B, Walter FM. Research Data Supporting “The diagnostic performance of CA125 for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancer in primary care: a population-based cohort study.” University of Cambridge Repository; 2020. 10.17863/CAM.56363
    1. Price SJ, Stapley SA, Shephard E, Barraclough K, Hamilton WT. Is omission of free text records a possible source of data loss and bias in Clinical Practice Research Datalink studies? A case-control study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011664 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011664
    1. Pauler DK, Menon U, McIntosh M, Symecko HL, Skates SJ, Jacobs IJ. Factors influencing serum CA125II levels in healthy postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:489–493.
    1. Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, Bozzetti MC. Accuracy of CA 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: A quantitative systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;142:99–105. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.08.011
    1. Jacobs I, Bast RC. The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:1–12.
    1. Buys SS, Partridge E, Greene MH, Prorok PC, Reding D, Riley TL, et al. Ovarian cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: Findings from the initial screen of a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193: 1630–1639. 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.005
    1. Sjövall K, Nilsson B, Einhorn N. The significance of serum CA 125 elevation in malignant and nonmalignant diseases. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85:175–178. 10.1006/gyno.2002.6603
    1. Cancer Research UK. Ovarian cancer incidence by age. [cited 2020 Jun 5]. Available:
    1. Banks J, Hollinghurst S, Bigwood L, Peters TJ, Walter FM, Hamilton W. Preferences for cancer investigation: A vignette-based study of primary-care attendees. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:232–240. 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70588-6
    1. Reade CJ, Riva JJ, Busse JW, Goldsmith CH, Elit L. Risks and benefits of screening asymptomatic women for ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:674–681. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.06.029
    1. Sundar S, Rick C, Dowling F, Au P, Snell K, Rai N, et al. Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS): protocol for a prospective longitudinal test accuracy study to validate new risk scores in women with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010333 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010333
    1. Kurtz AB, Tsimikas J V., Tempany CMC, Hamper UM, Arger PH, Bree RL, et al. Diagnosis and Staging of Ovarian Cancer: Comparative Values of Doppler and Conventional US, CT, and MR Imaging Correlated with Surgery and Histopathologic Analysis—Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 1999;212:19–27. 10.1148/radiology.212.1.r99jl3619
    1. Lee ES, Lee JM. Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: A state-of-the-art review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:7864–77. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7864
    1. Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD, Black WC, Brewer B, Church TR, et al. Results of the Two Incidence Screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:920–931. 10.1056/NEJMoa1208962
    1. Menon U, Ryan A, Kalsi J, Gentry-Maharaj A, Dawnay A, Habib M, et al. Risk algorithm using serial biomarker measurements doubles the number of screen-detected cancers compared with a single-threshold rule in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening. J Clin Oncol. 2015;20:2062–71.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅