Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Diagnostic Performance of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm Against CA125 and HE4 in Connection With Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis
  1. Farshid Dayyani, MD, PhD,
  2. Steffen Uhlig, PhD,
  3. Bertrand Colson, Dipl-Math,
  4. Kirsten Simon, Dipl-Psych,
  5. Vinzent Rolny, Dipl-Stat,
  6. David Morgenstern, PhD and
  7. Matthew Schlumbrecht, MD
  1. * Roche Diagnostics International, Rotkreuz, Switzerland;
  2. QuoData, Freising;
  3. QuoData, Dresden; and
  4. § Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Penzberg, Germany;
  5. Roche Professional Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN; and
  6. Division of Surgery, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, AZ.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Matthew Schlumbrecht, MD, Division of Surgery, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, 2946 E Banner Gateway Dr, Gilbert, AZ 85234. E-mail: schlumbr{at}


Objectives The aim of this study was to determine whether the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) is more accurate than the human epididymis 4 (HE4) or carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) biomarkers with respect to the differential diagnosis of women with a pelvic mass. The secondary objective is to assess the performance of ROMA in early-stage ovarian cancer (OC) and late-stage OC, as well as premenopausal and postmenopausal patient populations.

Methods/Materials The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant clinical studies. Eligibility criteria included comparison of ROMA with both HE4 and CA125 levels in OC (unspecified, epithelial, and borderline ovarian tumors), use of only validated ROMA assays, presentation of area under the curve and sensitivity/specificity data, and results from early-stage OC, late-stage OC and premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity/specificity, and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) results were summarized.

Results Five studies were selected comprising 1975 patients (premenopausal, n = 1033; postmenopausal, n = 925; benign, n = 1387; early stage, n = 192; and late stage, n = 313). On the basis of the AUC (95% confidence interval) data for all patients, ROMA (0.921 [0.855–0.960]) had a numerically greater diagnostic performance than CA125 (0.883 [0.771–0.950]) and HE4 (0.899 [0.835–0.943]). This was also observed in each of the subgroup populations, in particular, the postmenopausal patients and patients with early OC. The sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) results showed ROMA (sensitivity, 0.873 [0.752–0.940]; specificity, 0.855 [0.719–0.932]) to be numerically superior to CA125 (sensitivity, 0.796 [0.663–0.885]; specificity, 0.825 [0.662–0.919]) and HE4 (sensitivity, 0.817 [0.683–0.902]; specificity, 0.851 [0.716–0.928]) in all patients and for the early- and late-stage OC subgroups. Finally, the ROMA log DOR results were better than HE4 and CA125 log DOR results especially for the early-stage patient group.

Conclusions The results presented support the use of ROMA to improve clinical decision making, most notably in patients with early OC.

  • Ovarian cancer
  • ROMA
  • CA125
  • HE4

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.