Clinical validation of multiple biomarkers suspension array technology for ovarian cancer

Objective: To investigates the diagnostic value of combined detection serum CCL18, CXCL1 antigen, C1D, TM4SF1, FXR1, TIZ IgG autoantibody by suspension array for ovarian cancer. Methods: Suspension array was used to detect CCL18, CXCL1 antigen, C1D, TM4SF1, FXR1, TIZ IgG autoantibody in 120 cases of healthy women, 204 cases of patients with benign pelvic tumors, 119 cases of pelvic malignant tumor patients, and 40 cases with breast cancer, lung cancer oroliver cancer, respectively. Constructed diagnosis model of combined detection six biomarkers for diagnosis of ovarian malignant tumor. Constructed diagnosis model of combined detection autoantibodies to diagnose epithelial ovarian cancer. Analysed the value of detecting six biomarkers for diagnosis of ovarian malignant tumor and detecting autoantibodies for diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Analysed diagnostic value of detecting six biomarkers to diagnose stage Ⅰ and Ⅱepithelial ovarian cancer. Compared diagnostic value of detecting six biomarkers in diagnosis of tissue types and pathologic grading with that of CA(125). Results: Model of combined detecting six biomarkers to diagnose ovarian malignant tumor was logit (P) =-11.151+0.008×C1D+0.011×TM4SF1+0.011×TIZ-0.008×FXR1+0.021×CCL18+0.200×CXCL1. Model of combined detection autoantibodies to diagnose epithelial ovarian cancer was logit (P) =-5.137+0.013×C1D+0.014×TM4SF1+0.060×TIZ-0.060×FXR1. Sensitivity and specificity of detecting six biomarker to diagnose ovarian malignant tumor was 90.6% and 98.7%. Sensitivity and specificity of detecting autoantibodies to diagnose epithelial ovarian cancer was 75.8% and 96.7%. Combined detection for six biomarkers to diagnose serous and mucinous ovarian cancer was statistically no better than those of CA(125) (P=0.196 and P=0.602, respectively); there was significantly difference in diagnosis of ovarian cancer (P=0.023), and there was no significantly difference in diagnosis of different pathological grading (P=0.089 and P=0.169, respectively). Conclusions: Constructing diagnosis model of combined detection six biomarker to diagnose ovarian malignant tumor and constructed diagnosis model of combined detectionautoantibodies to diagnose epithelial ovarian cancer. Combined detection six biomarkers to diagnose serous and mucinous ovarian tumors is better than that of CA(125).