J 2016

Is human epididymis protein 4 an effective tool for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant endometrial tumours?

MINÁŘ, Luboš, Ivanka KLABENEŠOVÁ, Eva JANDÁKOVÁ, Filip ZLÁMAL, Julie BIENERTOVÁ VAŠKŮ et. al.

Základní údaje

Originální název

Is human epididymis protein 4 an effective tool for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant endometrial tumours?

Autoři

MINÁŘ, Luboš (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí), Ivanka KLABENEŠOVÁ (203 Česká republika), Eva JANDÁKOVÁ (203 Česká republika), Filip ZLÁMAL (203 Česká republika, domácí) a Julie BIENERTOVÁ VAŠKŮ (203 Česká republika, domácí)

Vydání

European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, Montreal, IROG CANADA, 2016, 0392-2936

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

30214 Obstetrics and gynaecology

Stát vydavatele

Kanada

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 0.692

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14110/16:00091106

Organizační jednotka

Lékařská fakulta

UT WoS

000385055500004

Klíčová slova anglicky

Benign endometrial tumours; Endometrial cancer; Human epididymis protein 4.

Štítky

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 14. 11. 2016 09:30, Ing. Mgr. Věra Pospíšilíková

Anotace

V originále

Purpose of investigation: This study was designed to evaluate the use of human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as a biomarker in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign endometrial tumours. Materials and Methods: The study, conducted between July 2009 and June 2014, included a total of 150 patients with endometrioid adenocarcinoma and a control group of 150 patients with benign endometrial lesions. The serum of all patients was analyzed with respect to HE4 and CA125 levels. The median and ranges of serum levels were determined in relation to histological results. The statistical analysis procedure employed in this study utilized logarithmic-transformed values of biomarkers and logistic regression. Results: An analysis of two groups of patients with different histologies yielded a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.05) only in the case of HE4, in which case a cut-off value of 48.5 pmol/l resulted in an achieved sensitivity of 87.8%, a specificity of 56.6%, and a negative predictive value of 81.1%. Conclusion: In combination with clinical and ultrasound findings, HE4 could help with the differentiation of prognostically varied patient groups as well as with the decision-making process associated with the development of individual treatment plans. However, the optimal cut-off for HE4 has not been established yet and further studies are needed.