A Novel Multi-analyte Serum Panel Combining CA-125, HE4, microRNA-200a, and Interleukin-6 for the Preclinical Detection of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma in Women with Pathogenic *BRCA1/2* Variants

Serum CA-125, HE4, microRNA-200a, and Interleukin- Serous Ovarian Carcinoma

  • Chanyu Li 1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chendu 610500, Sichuan, China
  • Zhiling Yang 1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chendu 610500, Sichuan, China
  • Jiaqiong Xie 1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chendu 610500, Sichuan, China
  • Yingfei Long 1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chendu 610500, Sichuan, China
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/jomb0-65630
Keywords: serum CA-125, HE4, miR-200a, IL-6 ,HGSOC , BRCA

Abstract


Background: Pathogenic *BRCA1/2* variant carriers require effective surveillance for high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), a malignancy characterized by late-stage detection and poor prognosis. Current monitoring with CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound lacks sensitivity for early-stage disease.
Objective: To develop and validate a multi-analyte serum panel for the preclinical detection of HGSOC in *BRCA1/2* carriers.
Methods: In a prospective, multicenter longitudinal cohort, we enrolled 450 women with pathogenic *BRCA1/2* variants. Serial serum samples were collected every 6 months. The study included 45 incident HGSOC cases and 405 matched controls. Levels of CA-125, HE4, miR-200a, and IL-6 were quantified using immunoassays and RT-qPCR. A composite risk score was derived using logistic regression, and diagnostic performance was evaluated using ROC curve analysis, sensitivity, specificity, and lead-time assessment.
Results: All four biomarkers were significantly elevated in pre-diagnostic samples from HGSOC cases (p<0.001). The combined panel achieved an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98), significantly outperforming individual markers (CA-125 AUC=0.86; HE4 AUC=0.82; miR-200a AUC=0.88; IL-6 AUC=0.70; DeLong's test p<0.01). At a 90% specificity threshold, the panel's sensitivity was 88%, compared to 68% for CA-125 alone. The panel detected HGSOC a median of 12 months (IQR: 8-16) prior to clinical diagnosis, with a lead-time sensitivity of 72% at 18 months pre-diagnosis.
Conclusion: The integrated serum panel of CA-125, HE4, miR-200a, and IL-6 demonstrates exceptional diagnostic accuracy for the preclinical detection of HGSOC in BRCA carriers. This panel represents a transformative potential for structured surveillance programs, enabling earlier intervention and personalized risk management.

References

1. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(1):12-49.
2. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402-2416.
3. Daly MB, Pal T, Berry MP, et al. Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(1):77-102.
4. Finch AP, Lubinski J, Møller P, et al. Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15):1547-1553.
5. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10290):2182-2193.
6. Pinsky PF, Yu K, Kramer BS, et al. Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15years follow-up. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(2):270-275.
7. Skates SJ, Greene MH, Buys SS, et al. Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm with Frequent CA125 Testing in Women at Increased Familial Risk – Combined Results from Two Screening Trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(14):3628-3637.
8. Henderson JT, Webber EM, Sawaya GF. Screening for Ovarian Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319(6):595-606.
9. Moore RG, Miller MC, Disilvestro P, et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with a pelvic mass. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(2 Pt 1):280-288.
10. Iorio MV, Visone R, Di Leva G, et al. MicroRNA signatures in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2007;67(18):8699-8707.
11. Parikh A, Lee C, Joseph P, et al. microRNA-181a and microRNA-630 regulate cisplatin-induced cancer cell death. Cancer Res. 2010;70(5):1793-1803.
12. Coward J, Kulbe H, Chakravarty P, et al. Interleukin-6 as a therapeutic target in human ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(18):6083-6096.
13. Hodge DR, Hurt EM, Farrar WL. The role of IL-6 and STAT3 in inflammation and cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(16):2502-2512.
14. Labidi-Galy SI, Papp E, Hallberg D, et al. High grade serous ovarian carcinomas originate in the fallopian tube. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1093.
15. Yurkovetsky Z, Skates S, Lomakin A, et al. Development of a multimarker assay for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2159-2166.
16. Cramer DW, Bast RC Jr, Berg CD, et al. Ovarian cancer biomarker performance in prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial specimens. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(3):365-374.
17. Bast RC Jr, Klug TL, St John E, et al. A radioimmunoassay using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1983;309(15):883-7.
18. Hellström I, Raycraft J, Hayden-Ledbetter M, et al. The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2003;63(13):3695-700.
19. Kinose Y, Sawada K, Nakamura K, et al. The role of microRNAs in ovarian cancer. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:249393.
20. Perets R, Wyant GA, Muto KW, et al. Transformation of the fallopian tube secretory epithelium leads to high-grade serous ovarian cancer in Brca;Tp53;Pten models. Cancer Cell. 2013;24(6):751-765.
21. Maccio A, Madeddu C. Inflammation and ovarian cancer. Cytokine. 2012;58(2):133-147.
22. Lane D, Matte I, Garde-Granger P, et al. Inflammation-Regulating Cytokines in the Ovarian Tumor Microenvironment. Front Immunol. 2017;8:888.
23. Wang Y, Xu RC, Zhang XL, et al. Interleukin-6 signaling regulates anchorage-independent growth, proliferation, adhesion and invasion in human ovarian cancer cells. Cytokine. 2012;59(2):228-36.
24. Soong TR, Howitt BE, Horowitz N, et al. The fallopian tube, “precursor escape” and narrowing the knowledge gap to the origins of high-grade serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(2):426-433.
25. Visvanathan K, Vang R, Shaw P, et al. Diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma based on morphologic and immunohistochemical features: a reproducibility study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(12):1766-75.
26. Nebgen DR, Lu KH, Bast RC Jr. Novel Approaches to Ovarian Cancer Screening. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21(8):75.
27. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(14):1054-1061.
28. Harmsen MG, IntHout J, Arts-de Jong M, et al. Salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: Estimates of benefits and risks. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;155(3):475-481.
29. van der Burgt YEM, Aarem JV, Aarts MJB, et al. The psychological impact of a multifactorial ovarian cancer early detection program. Psychooncology. 2022;31(3):410-418.
30. Rosenthal AN, Fraser LSM, Philpott S, et al. Evidence of Stage Shift in Women Diagnosed With Ovarian Cancer During Phase II of the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(13):1411-1420.
31. Cohen JD, Li L, Wang Y, et al. Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test. Science. 2018;359(6378):926-930.
32. Cristiano S, Leal A, Phallen J, et al. Genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation in patients with cancer. Nature. 2019;570(7761):385-389.
33. Havrilesky LJ, Sanders GD, Kulasingam S, et al. Development of an ovarian cancer screening decision model that incorporates disease heterogeneity: implications for potential mortality reduction. Cancer. 2011;117(3):545-53.
Published
2026/06/01
Issue
Ahead of print
Section
Original paper

Copyright (c) 2026 Chanyu Li, Zhiling Yang, Jiaqiong Xie, Yingfei Long

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The published articles will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). It is allowed to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and remix, transform, and build upon it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given to the original author(s), a link to the license is provided and it is indicated if changes were made. Users are required to provide full bibliographic description of the original publication (authors, article title, journal title, volume, issue, pages), as well as its DOI code. In electronic publishing, users are also required to link the content with both the original article published in Journal of Medical Biochemistry and the licence used.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.