Use of biomarkers for detecting ovarian cancer

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method of qualifying ovarian cancer status in a subject comprising: (a) measuring at least one biomarker in a sample from the subject and (b) correlating the measurement with ovarian cancer status. The invention further relates to kits for qualifying ovarian cancer status in a subject.

Description

[0001]The identification of tumor markers suitable for the early detection and diagnosis of cancer holds great promise to improve the clinical outcome of patients. It is especially important for patients presenting with vague or no symptoms or with tumors that are relatively inaccessible to physical examination. Despite considerable effort directed at early detection, no cost effective screening tests have been developed (Paley P J., Curr Opin Oncol, 2001; 13(5):399-402) and women generally present with disseminated disease at diagnosis. (Ozols R F, et al., Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Hoskins W J, Perez C A, Young R C, editors. Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2000. p. 981-1057).[0002]The best-characterized tumor marker, CA125, is negative in approximately 30-40% of stage I ovarian carcinomas and its levels are elevated in a variety of benign diseases. (Meyer T, et al., Br J Cancer, 2000; 82(9):1535-8; Buamah...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

[0002]The best-characterized tumor marker, CA125, is negative in approximately 30-40% of stage I ovarian carcinomas and its levels are elevated in a variety of benign diseases. (Meyer T, et al., Br J Cancer, 2000; 82(9):1535-8; Buamah P., J Surg Oncol, 2000; 75(4):264-5; Tuxen M K, et al., Cancer Treat Rev, 1995; 21(3):215-45). Its use as a population-based screening tool for early detection and diagnosis of ovarian cancer is hindered by its low sensitivity and specificity. (MacDonald N D, et al., Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 1999; 82(2):155-7; Jacobs I, et al., Hum Reprod, 1989; 4(1):1-12; Shih I-M, et al., Tumor markers in ovarian cancer. In: Diamandis E P, Fritsche, H., Lilja, H., Chan, D. W., and Schwartz, M., editor. Tumor markers physiology, pathobiology, technology and clinical applications. Philadelphia: AACC Press; in press). Although pelvic and more recently vaginal sonography has been used to screen high-risk patients, neither technique has the sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be applied to the general population. (MacDonald N D, et al., supra). Recent efforts in using CA125 in combination with additional tumor markers (Woolas R P X F, et al., J Natl Cancer Inst, 1993; 85(21):1748-51; Woolas R P, et al., Gynecol Oncol, 1995; 59(1):111-6; Zhang Z, et al., Gynecol Oncol, 1999; 73(1):56-61; Zhang Z, et al., Use of Multiple Markers to Detect Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancers: Neural Network Analysis Improves Performance. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2001; Annual Meeting, Abstract) in a longitudinal risk of cancer model (Skates S J, et al., Cancer, 1995; 76(10 Suppl):2004-10), and in tandem with ultrasound as a second line test (Jacobs I D A, et al., Br Med J, 1993; 306(6884):1030-34; Menon U T A, et al., British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2000; 107(2):165-69) have shown promising results in improving overall test specificity, which is critical for a disease such as ovarian cancer that has a relatively low prevalence.

Problems solved by technology

Despite considerable effort directed at early detection, no cost effective screening tests have been developed (Paley P J., Curr Opin Oncol, 2001; 13(5):399-402) and women generally present with disseminated disease at diagnosis.

Its use as a population-based screening tool for early detection and diagnosis of ovarian cancer is hindered by its low sensitivity and specificity.

Although pelvic and more recently vaginal sonography has been used to screen high-risk patients, neither technique has the sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be applied to the general population.

Images