|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
Highlights
►
The multivariate index assay (MVA) was evaluated in an intended-use
population of non-gynecologic oncology practices.
► The MVA demonstrated high sensitivity and NPV for ovarian malignancy.
► The MVA correctly identified 83.3% malignancies missed by clinical impression and 70.8% cases missed by CA125-II.
► The MVA demonstrated high sensitivity and NPV for ovarian malignancy.
► The MVA correctly identified 83.3% malignancies missed by clinical impression and 70.8% cases missed by CA125-II.
- a University of California, Irvine-Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA
- b Applied Clinical Intelligence, Bala Cynwyd, PA, USA
- c The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA
- d Vermillion, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
- e Vermillion, Inc., Austin, TX, USA
Objective
To
validate the effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in identifying
ovarian malignancy compared to clinical assessment and CA125-II, among
women undergoing surgery for an adnexal mass after enrollment by
non-gynecologic oncology providers.
Methods
A
prospective, multi-institutional trial enrolled female patients
scheduled to undergo surgery for an adnexal mass from 27 non-gynecologic
oncology practices. Pre-operative serum samples and physician
assessment of ovarian cancer risk were correlated with final surgical
pathology.
Results
A total of
494 subjects were evaluable for multivariate index assay, CA125-II, and
clinical impression. Overall, 92 patients (18.6%) had a pelvic
malignancy. Primary ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 65 patients (13.2%),
with 43.1% having FIGO stage I disease. For all ovarian malignancies,
the sensitivity of the multivariate index assay was 95.7%
(95%CI = 89.3–98.3) when combined with clinical impression. The
multivariate index assay correctly predicted ovarian malignancy in 91.4%
(95%CI = 77.6–97.0) of cases of early-stage disease, compared to 65.7%
(95%CI = 49.2–79.2) for CA125-II. The multivariate index assay correctly
identified 83.3% malignancies missed by clinical impression and 70.8%
cases missed by CA125-II. Multivariate index assay was superior in
predicting the absence of an ovarian malignancy, with a negative
predictive value of 98.1% (95%CI = 95.2–99.2). Both clinical impression
and CA125-II were more accurate at identifying benign disease. The
multivariate index assay correctly predicted benign pathology in 204
patients (50.7%, 95%CI = 45.9–55.6) when combined with clinical
impression.
Conclusion
The
multivariate index assay demonstrated higher sensitivity and negative
predictive value for ovarian malignancy compared to clinical impression
and CA125-II in an intended-use population of non-gynecologic oncology
practices.
Graphical abstract
Highlights
►
The multivariate index assay (MVA) was evaluated in an intended-use
population of non-gynecologic oncology practices. ► The MVA demonstrated
high sensitivity and NPV for ovarian malignancy. ► The MVA correctly
identified 83.3% malignancies missed by clinical impression and 70.8%
cases missed by CA125-II.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.