Jason D. Thorpe

Assessing Lead Time of Selected Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers: A Nested Case–Control Study

Background CA125, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), mesothelin, B7-H4, decoy receptor 3 (DcR3), and spondin-2 have been identified as potential ovarian cancer biomarkers. Except for CA125, their behavior in the prediagnostic period has not been evaluated. Methods Immunoassays were used to determine concentrations of CA125, HE4, mesothelin, B7-H4, DcR3, and spondin-2 proteins in prediagnostic serum specimens (1–11 samples per participant) that were contributed 0–18 years before ovarian cancer diagnosis from 34 patients with ovarian cancer (15 with advanced-stage serous carcinoma) and during a comparable time interval before the reference date from 70 matched control subjects who were participating in the Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial. Lowess curves were fit to biomarker levels in cancer patients and control subjects separately to summarize mean levels over time. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, and area-under-the curve (AUC) statistics were computed to summarize the discrimination ability of these biomarkers by time before diagnosis. Results Smoothed mean concentrations of CA125, HE4, and mesothelin (but not of B7-H4, DcR3, and spondin-2) began to increase (visually) in cancer patients relative to control subjects approximately 3 years before diagnosis but reached detectable elevations only within the final year before diagnosis. In descriptive receiver operating characteristic analyses, the discriminatory power of these biomarkers was limited (AUC statistics range = 0.56–0.75) but showed increasing accuracy with time approaching diagnosis (eg, AUC statistics for CA125 were 0.57, 0.68, and 0.74 for ≥4, 2–4, and <2 years before diagnosis, respectively). Conclusion Serum concentrations of CA125, HE4, and mesothelin may provide evidence of ovarian cancer 3 years before clinical diagnosis, but the likely lead time associated with these markers appears to be less than 1 year.

Systematic Evaluation of Candidate Blood Markers for Detecting Ovarian Cancer

Background Epithelial ovarian cancer is a significant cause of mortality both in the United States and worldwide, due largely to the high proportion of cases that present at a late stage, when survival is extremely poor. Early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer, and of the serous subtype in particular, is a promising strategy for saving lives. The low prevalence of ovarian cancer makes the development of an adequately sensitive and specific test based on blood markers very challenging. We evaluated the performance of a set of candidate blood markers and combinations of these markers in detecting serous ovarian cancer. Methods and Findings We selected 14 candidate blood markers of serous ovarian cancer for which assays were available to measure their levels in serum or plasma, based on our analysis of global gene expression data and on literature searches. We evaluated the performance of these candidate markers individually and in combination by measuring them in overlapping sets of serum (or plasma) samples from women with clinically detectable ovarian cancer and women without ovarian cancer. Based on sensitivity at high specificity, we determined that 4 of the 14 candidate markers-MUC16, WFDC2, MSLN and MMP7-warrant further evaluation in precious serum specimens collected months to years prior to clinical diagnosis to assess their utility in early detection. We also reported differences in the performance of these candidate blood markers across histological types of epithelial ovarian cancer. Conclusions By systematically analyzing the performance of candidate blood markers of ovarian cancer in distinguishing women with clinically apparent ovarian cancer from women without ovarian cancer, we identified a set of serum markers with adequate performance to warrant testing for their ability to identify ovarian cancer months to years prior to clinical diagnosis. We argued for the importance of sensitivity at high specificity and of magnitude of difference in marker levels between cases and controls as performance metrics and demonstrated the importance of stratifying analyses by histological type of ovarian cancer. Also, we discussed the limitations of studies (like this one) that use samples obtained from symptomatic women to assess potential utility in detection of disease months to years prior to clinical detection.

Influence of ovarian cancer risk status on the diagnostic performance of the serum biomarkers mesothelin, HE4, and CA125.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of ovarian cancer risk on the performance of the serum biomarkers mesothelin, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and CA125. Methods: We measured mesothelin, HE4, and CA125 levels from women with invasive ovarian cancer (n = 143), benign gynecologic conditions (n = 124), and controls (n = 344). Demographic, epidemiologic, reproductive, medical, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. Pedigree and BRCA 1/2 test results were used to stratify women into average and high-risk groups. The diagnostic accuracy of each biomarker was characterized using receiver operating characteristic curve methods. Results: Baseline characteristics did not vary by risk or case status. The distribution of stage and histology was similar in average and high-risk women. All three markers discriminated ovarian cancer cases from risk-matched healthy and benign controls. Marker performance did not vary by risk status. The sensitivity at 95% specificity for discriminating cases from risk-matched healthy control women in the average and high-risk groups, respectively, was 53.9% and 39.0% for mesothelin, 80.4% and 87.8% for HE4, and 79.4% and 82.9% for CA125. The performance of the markers was not as robust when cases were compared with benign controls. Area under the curve values for cases versus healthy and benign controls did not vary by risk status. Conclusions: The ability of serum mesothelin, HE4, and CA 125 levels to discriminate ovarian cancer cases from healthy and benign controls is not influenced by risk status. Our findings support the pursuit of additional studies evaluating the early detection potential of these markers in high-risk populations. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(5):1365–72)

Effects of personal characteristics on serum CA125, mesothelin, and HE4 levels in healthy postmenopausal women at high-risk for ovarian cancer.

Objective: To evaluate if serum levels of candidate ovarian cancer biomarkers vary with individual characteristics of healthy women who are likely candidates for an ovarian cancer screening program. Methods: We analyzed serum CA125, mesothelin, and HE4 levels in a sample of 155 healthy postmenopausal women at increased risk for developing ovarian cancer based on personal and family cancer history. Information on reproductive, family and medical histories, lifestyle factors, and anthropometry was collected by self-report. Twenty-two factors were examined using univariate and multiple linear regression models for the three biomarker levels. Results: In the multivariate models, CA125 levels were significantly higher in women who had used talcum powder (P = 0.02) and were lower in women who were parous (P = 0.05). Mesothelin levels were significantly higher in older women (P = 0.01) and lower in heavier women (P = 0.03). HE4 levels were higher in older women (P = 0.001) and in women who began menstruating at an older age (P = 0.03). Conclusions: CA125, mesothelin, and HE4 levels in healthy, postmenopausal women at increased risk for ovarian cancer are significantly associated with a few ovarian cancer risk factors. Since the effects of these personal characteristics on these serum markers are not large, their incorporation in screening algorithms may be unnecessary. This is true especially if a longitudinal algorithm is used because the marker level at the previous screen reflects personal characteristics such as age, body mass index, and age of menarche. Understanding the influence of personal factors on levels of novel early detection markers in healthy, unaffected women may have clinical utility in interpreting biomarker levels. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(9):2480–7)

Integrated proteomic analysis of human cancer cells and plasma from tumor bearing mice for ovarian cancer biomarker discovery.

Background The complexity of the human plasma proteome represents a substantial challenge for biomarker discovery. Proteomic analysis of genetically engineered mouse models of cancer and isolated cancer cells and cell lines provide alternative methods for identification of potential cancer markers that would be detectable in human blood using sensitive assays. The goal of this work is to evaluate the utility of an integrative strategy using these two approaches for biomarker discovery. Methodology/Principal Findings We investigated a strategy that combined quantitative plasma proteomics of an ovarian cancer mouse model with analysis of proteins secreted or shed by human ovarian cancer cells. Of 106 plasma proteins identified with increased levels in tumor bearing mice, 58 were also secreted or shed from ovarian cancer cells. The remainder consisted primarily of host-response proteins. Of 25 proteins identified in the study that were assayed, 8 mostly secreted proteins common to mouse plasma and human cancer cells were significantly upregulated in a set of plasmas from ovarian cancer patients. Five of the eight proteins were confirmed to be upregulated in a second independent set of ovarian cancer plasmas, including in early stage disease. Conclusions/Significance Integrated proteomic analysis of cancer mouse models and human cancer cell populations provides an effective approach to identify potential circulating protein biomarkers.

Evaluation of ovarian cancer remission markers HE4, MMP7 and Mesothelin by comparison to the established marker CA125.

OBJECTIVE Evaluate and compare the effectiveness of CA125, HE4, Mesothelin and MMP7 marker levels to monitor ovarian cancer patients after surgery and chemotherapy. Evaluate the lead time of a rise of marker levels before recurrence. METHODS The study consists of 23 patients with advanced stage ovarian/fallopian tube cancer. Blood was drawn after front line surgery and chemotherapy treatment and at 3 month intervals thereafter. One patient had chemoresistant disease, two patients remained in remission and 20 patients had recurring disease and were used for marker evaluation. RESULTS In five patients HE4 was the only marker to elevate before recurrence with a lead time of up to 4½ months including one patient who did not have a CA125 response at all. In a further two patients, HE4 increased before CA125 did. In four of these seven patients, HE4 levels were consistently at or above threshold during remission when both CA125 and imaging results were negative. MMP7 elevated before recurrence in one patient who was negative for the other markers. Mesothelin elevated in two patients who were also positive for CA125 and HE4. CONCLUSIONS HE4 can predict ovarian cancer recurrence earlier than CA125 and it can be elevated in patients that do not express CA125 at sufficient levels to make a clinical decision. MMP7 and Mesothelin have lower potential as markers for ovarian cancer recurrence to complement CA125. A failure of HE4 levels to normalize at completion of standard therapy may indicate a poor prognosis.

Effects of blood collection conditions on ovarian cancer serum markers.

Background Evaluating diagnostic and early detection biomarkers requires comparing serum protein concentrations among biosamples ascertained from subjects with and without cancer. Efforts are generally made to standardize blood processing and storage conditions for cases and controls, but blood sample collection conditions cannot be completely controlled. For example, blood samples from cases are often obtained from persons aware of their diagnoses, and collected after fasting or in surgery, whereas blood samples from some controls may be obtained in different conditions, such as a clinic visit. By measuring the effects of differences in collection conditions on three different markers, we investigated the potential of these effects to bias validation studies. Methodology and Principle Findings We analyzed serum concentrations of three previously studied putative ovarian cancer serum biomarkers–CA 125, Prolactin and MIF–in healthy women, women with ovarian cancer undergoing gynecologic surgery, women undergoing surgery for benign ovary pathology, and women undergoing surgery with pathologically normal ovaries. For women undergoing surgery, a blood sample was collected either in the clinic 1 to 39 days prior to surgery, or on the day of surgery after anesthesia was administered but prior to the surgical procedure, or both. We found that one marker, prolactin, was dramatically affected by collection conditions, while CA 125 and MIF were unaffected. Prolactin levels were not different between case and control groups after accounting for the conditions of sample collection, suggesting that sample ascertainment could explain some or all of the previously reported results about its potential as a biomarker for ovarian cancer. Conclusions Biomarker validation studies should use standardized collection conditions, use multiple control groups, and/or collect samples from cases prior to influence of diagnosis whenever feasible to detect and correct for potential biases associated with sample collection.

Potential Role of HE4 in Multimodal Screening for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

In screening for epithelial ovarian cancer, unnecessary surgery can be reduced by limiting use of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) to women with increasing CA125 serum levels. Replacing or augmenting TVU with measurement of a serum marker specific for malignancy might further improve screening performance. Serum samples from 112 invasive ovarian cancer patients and 706 matched control subjects from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian trial were used to evaluate human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), mesothelin, matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP7), SLPI, Spondin2, and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 2 (IGFBP2) for their potential use in screening. TVU results were available for a subset of 84 patients and 516 control subjects used to compare the best marker with TVU. HE4 was found to perform better than TVU as a second-line screen, confirming 27 of 39 cancers with increasing CA125 serum levels compared with 17 cancers confirmed by TVU (P = .03). Serum HE4 levels were found to increase with age and smoking status, suggesting that a longitudinal algorithm might improve its performance.

Longitudinal Screening Algorithm That Incorporates Change Over Time in CA125 Levels Identifies Ovarian Cancer Earlier Than a Single-Threshold Rule

PURPOSE Longitudinal algorithms incorporate change over time in biomarker levels to individualize screening decision rules. Compared with a single-threshold (ST) rule, smaller deviations from baseline biomarker levels are required to signal disease. We demonstrated improvement in ovarian cancer early detection by using a longitudinal algorithm to monitor annual CA125 levels. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively evaluated serial preclinical serum CA125 values measured annually in 44 incident ovarian cancer cases identified from participants in the PLCO (Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian) Cancer Screening Trial to determine how frequently and to what extent the parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) longitudinal screening algorithm identifies ovarian cancer earlier than an ST rule. RESULTS The PEB algorithm detected ovarian cancer earlier than an ST rule in a substantial proportion of cases. At 99% specificity, which corresponded to the ST-rule CA125 cutoff ≥ 35 U/mL that was used in the PLCO trial, 20% of cases were identified earlier by using the PEB algorithm. Among these cases, the PEB signaled abnormal CA125 values, on average, 10 months earlier and at a CA125 concentration 42% lower (20 U/mL) than the ST-rule cutoff. The proportion of cases detected earlier by the PEB algorithm and the earliness of detection increased as the specificity of the screening rule was reduced. CONCLUSION The PEB longitudinal algorithm identifies ovarian cancer earlier and at lower biomarker concentrations than an ST screening algorithm adjusted to the same specificity. Longitudinal biomarker assessment by using the PEB algorithm may have application for screening other solid tumors in which biomarkers are available.

Use of yeast-secreted in vivo biotinylated recombinant antibodies (biobodies) in bead–based ELISA

Purpose: To measure circulating antigens, sandwich ELISA assays require two complementary affinity reagents. Mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and polyclonal antibodies (pAb) are commonly used, but because their production is lengthy and costly, recombinant antibodies are emerging as an attractive alternative. Experimental Design: We developed a new class of recombinant antibodies called biobodies (Bb) and compared them to mAb for use in serodiagnosis. Bbs were secreted biotinylated in vivo by diploid yeast and used as affinity reagents after Ni purification. Bead-based assays for HE4 and mesothelin were developed using Bbs in combination with pAbs (Bb/pAb assays). To assess precision, reproducibility studies were done using four runs of 16 replicates at six analyte levels for each marker. Pearson correlations and receiver-operator characteristic analyses were done in 214 patient serum samples to directly compare the Bb/pAb assays to mAb assays. Diagnostic performance of the Bb/pAb assay was further assessed in an expanded set of 336 ovarian cancer cases and controls. Results: On average across analyte levels, Bb/pAb assays yielded within-run and between-run coefficients of variations of 11.7 and 23.8, respectively, for HE4 and 14.0 and 14.5, respectively, for mesothelin. In the subset (n = 214), Pearson correlations of 0.95 for HE4 and 0.92 for mesothelin were observed between mAb and Bb/pAb assays. The area under the curves for the mAb and Bb/pAb assays were not significantly different for HE4 (0.88 and 0.84, respectively; P = 0.20) or mesothelin (0.74 and 0.72, respectively; P = 0.38). Conclusion: Yeast-secreted Bbs can be used reliably in cost-effective yet highly sensitive bead–based assays for use in large validation studies.