Abstract
Objective
Serum CA-125 values have been advocated in the monitoring of ovarian cancer patients receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. This evaluation sought to determine if the CA-125 test can be used to monitor treatment effect among patients receiving intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP).
Methods
Patient charts from a phase III clinical trial (GOG 172) were retrospectively reviewed. Serum CA-125 levels prior to each cycle of therapy were collected and compared between the IV and IP chemotherapy delivery. The association between CA-125 and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) was estimated and the homogeneity of the results between IP and IV chemotherapy was assessed.
Results
A total of 177 patients were treated with IV chemotherapy and 165 patients with IP chemotherapy with CA-125 data available were included in this analysis. The observed difference was not statistically significant in median CA-125 levels between the IV and IP arms at any time point (P>0.05 for all). Following surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with an abnormal CA-125 >35 U/ml were 2.45 times more likely to have disease progression (95% CI: 1.52–3.95, P<0.001) and 2.78 times more likely to die of disease (95% CI: 1.66–4.65, P<0.001), compared to those with a CA-125 <35 U/ml. These results were consistent with IP and IV chemotherapy.
Conclusion
Serum CA-125 levels decrease in a similar manner during IP chemotherapy when compared to IV chemotherapy. Serum CA-125 algorithms for monitoring treatment effect that have been established for IV chemotherapy may also be applied for patients receiving IP chemotherapy.
Keywords: CA-125, Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, Ovarian cancer
Introduction
Ovarian cancer will affect approximately 21,650 patients in the United States resulting in 15,520 deaths in 2008 [1]. Approximately 80% of the patients will present with Stages III to IV cancer. Traditionally surgical cytoreduction followed by platinum based chemotherapy has been the cornerstone of treatment of this population. Early normalization of the CA-125 during adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy among patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer is associated with improved survival [2–4]. Monitoring serum CA-125 levels during therapy is a predictor of survival and may allow for early identification of patients who are not responding to therapy and require a change in treatment.
Recent studies have suggested survival advantages associated with intraperitoneal (IP) infusion of chemotherapy which allows for high doses of chemotherapy to be infused because of the slow and incomplete transit of intraperitoneal agents into the circulation [5–7]. The use of IP chemotherapy, with cisplatin and paclitaxel, may cause irritation of the peritoneal cavity and theoretically increase CA-125 levels. Makhija et al. previously reported on serum CA-125 levels in patients who have undergone surgery and were then treated with intraperitoneal 32P. Their results found patients treated with intraperitoneal 32P had elevated serum CA-125 levels, and that this tumor marker may not accurately reflect recurrent or progressive ovarian cancer [8]. Richardson et al. in a single institution review did not demonstrate any difference in the rate of decline of CA-125 levels when comparing patients treated with intravenous (IV) to IP chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer [9]. The present analysis was performed utilizing data from a large cooperative group clinical trial to evaluate the utility of CA-125 levels in patients treated with IP versus IV chemotherapy.
Methods
Patient charts from a phase III clinical trial, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study 172, were retrospectively reviewed. GOG-172 was a phase III randomized trial of IV versus IP cisplatin/paclitaxel in patients with optimally-resected, stage III epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or primary peritoneal carcinoma. Details regarding eligibility criteria, treatment and clinical outcomes have been previously published [5]. Serum CA-125 levels prior to each cycle of therapy were collected and compared between the IV and IP groups. The analysis was conducted according to the treatment that the patients actually received. Patients who were randomized to a treatment arm, but did not receive the chemotherapy as prescribed were excluded from the analysis at that assessment point. Therefore, to be included in this analysis patients must have CA-125 data available and have received the prescribed protocol therapy at each cycle. The comparisons included the rate of normalization (defined as ≤35 U/ml) and the median CA-125 level at each assessment point. All patients had signed written informed consent and all participating institutions received local institutional review board approval for the study.
The prognostic value of CA-125 measured at pre-treatment, pre-second cycle; pre-fourth cycle and pre-sixth cycle was assessed. The relative risks of disease progression and death for >35 versus ≤35 U/ml were estimated from a Cox model adjusted for tumor residual, histology and type of chemotherapy (IV or IP). The interaction between type of treatment and CA-125 was evaluated to determine if the results were consistent between IP and IV patients. In addition, the association of CA-125 with clinical outcome was also assessed by treating CA-125 as a continuous variable, where the raw CA-125 level was transformed to a logarithmic scale [Log2(CA-125)]. The relative risk was interpreted for one-unit increase in Log2(CA-125), or one-fold increase in raw CA-125 level. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also estimated using Kaplan–Meier procedure based on the level of CA-125 at end of chemotherapy (>35 versus ≤35 U/ml) for both IP and IV patients [9]. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine hazard ratios for prognostic factors such as tumor residual, histology, and delivery of chemotherapy [10].
Results
Two hundred and ten (210) eligible patients were randomized to IV chemotherapy and 205 patients to IP chemotherapy. Two patients from the IV group and 16 patients from IP group who received no chemotherapy were excluded from this analysis. The demographic data of the patient populations for each subgroup has been previously described in the publication of GOG 172 and there were no differences with respect to age, stage, tumor grade, residual disease, and performance status between the IP and IV groups [5]. The number of patients with or without CA-125 data for each cycle is presented in Table 1. There was no statistical difference in the percentage of missing of CA-125 data. Missing data for each cycle of chemotherapy varied from 15–25% for IV chemotherapy and 8–24% for IP chemotherapy. The clinical characteristics were the same between patients with CA-125 data and those with missing data. The CA-125 level and the time to normalization by the type of treatment are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2. Median CA-125 levels for patients treated with IP chemotherapy at pre-treatment cycle 1, pre-2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th cycles were 144, 39, 26, 16, 14, and 13 U/ml respectively, whereas median CA-125 levels for patients treated with IV chemotherapy were 149, 40, 22, 16, 13, and 13 U/ml at pre-treatment, pre-2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th cycles respectively. The observed difference was not statistically significant between the IV and IP arms at any time point (P>0.05 for all). The CA-125 level experienced rapid reduction following the 1st cycle and became stable after the 3rd cycle of chemotherapy. Abnormal CA-125 (defined as a level >35 U/ml) was observed in 89% of patients at pre-treatment, 55% after one cycle, 21% after three cycles and 11% at the end of chemotherapy, with no difference between IV and IP groups (P>0.05).
Table 1.
Number of patients with CA-125 data for intravenous and intraperitoneal chemotherapy.
| Cycle | Intravenous chemotherapy |
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expected | Observed | Missing (%) | Expected | Observed | Missing (%) | |
| Pre-1st | 208 | 177 | 31 (15) | 189 | 165 | 24 (13) |
| Pre-2nd | 200 | 149 | 51 (26) | 149 | 122 | 27 (18) |
| Pre-3rd | 191 | 150 | 41 (22) | 119 | 91 | 28 (24) |
| Pre-4th | 180 | 138 | 42 (23) | 104 | 88 | 16 (15) |
| Pre-5th | 178 | 144 | 34 (19) | 97 | 80 | 17 (18) |
| Pre-6th | 173 | 129 | 44 (25) | 86 | 79 | 7 (8) |
Fig. 1.
CA-125 changes following intravenous (IV) and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy.
Table 2.
CA-125 levels during treatment for intravenous versus intraperitoneal chemotherapy.
| Intravenous chemotherapy |
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy |
|
|---|---|---|
| Baseline (pre-1st cycle) | ||
| No. patients | 177 | 165 |
| ≥35 U/ml, No. (%) | 160 (90.4%) | 146 (88.5%) |
| Median (25th–75th Pct) | 149 (73–309) | 144 (60–364) |
| Pre-2nd cycle | ||
| No. patients | 149 | 122 |
| ≥35 U/ml (%) | 82 (55.0%) | 67 (54.9%) |
| Median (25th–75th Pct) | 40 (20–100) | 39 (20–88) |
| Pre-3rd cycle | ||
| No. patients | 150 | 91 |
| ≥35 U/ml (%) | 54 (36.0%) | 31 (34.1%) |
| Median (25th–75th Pct) | 22 (11–54) | 26 (15–50) |
| Pre-4th cycle | ||
| No. patients | 138 | 88 |
| ≥35 U/ml (%) | 31 (22.5%) | 17 (19.3%) |
| Median (25th–75th Pct) | 16 (9–30) | 16 (10–28) |
| Pre-5th cycle | ||
| No. patients | 144 | 80 |
| ≥35 U/ml (%) | 20 (13.9%) | 11 (13.8%) |
| Median (25th–75th Pct) | 13 (9–21) | 14 (8–21) |
| Pre-6th cycle | ||
| No. patients | 129 | 79 |
| ≥35 U/ml (%) | 13 (10.1%) | 9 (11.4%) |
| Median (25th–75th Pct) | 13 (8–19) | 13 (8–19) |
Data missing due to corresponding treatment not given or CA125 not reported by the institutes. No significant difference in CA125 between two treatments identified at any time point (P>0.05 for all).
We evaluated the prognostic value of CA-125 at pre-chemotherapy, pre-2nd, pre-4th, and pre-6th cycles. The relative risk of disease progression and death for >35 versus ≤35 U/ml were estimated adjusted for tumor residual, histology and type of chemotherapy. There was no interaction between the type of treatment and CA125 (test for interaction: P>0.05 for all), suggesting the results were consistent between IV and IP groups. Thus, the hazard ratio was estimated as combing both IV and IP patients together. As shown in Table 3, the CA-125 level following treatment was significantly associated with outcome. After six cycles of chemotherapy, the risk of disease progression among patients with CA-125 >35 U/ml was 2.45 times (95% CI: 1.52–3.95, P<0.001) more than those with CA-125 level <35 U/ml and the risk of death was more than 2.78 times (95% CI: 1.66–4.65, P<0.001). Based on a continuous variable, a one-fold increase in CA-125 level led to a 35% increase in the risk of disease progression or 61% increase in the risk of death.
Table 3.
Association of CA-125 levels during treatment with progress-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
| PFS |
OS |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% C.I. | P value | HR | 95% C.I. | P value | |
| Baseline CA125 | ||||||
| Log2(CA125) | 1.10 | 1.02–1.18 | 0.009 | 1.09 | 1.01–1.17 | 0.032 |
| ≥35 versus < 35 U/ml | 0.99 | 0.65–1.52 | 0.961 | 1.16 | 0.71–1.90 | 0.565 |
| Pre-2nd cycle | ||||||
| Log2(CA125) | 1.24 | 1.15–1.34 | <0.001 | 1.26 | 1.16–1.37 | <0.001 |
| ≥35 versus < 35 U/ml | 1.98 | 1.47–2.66 | <0.001 | 2.88 | 2.01–4.16 | <0.001 |
| Pre-4th cycle | ||||||
| Log2(CA125) | 1.39 | 1.21–1.59 | <0.001 | 1.46 | 1.26–1.68 | <0.001 |
| ≥35 versus < 35 U/ml | 1.80 | 1.27–2.56 | 0.001 | 1.94 | 1.31–2.85 | <0.001 |
| Pre-6th cycle | ||||||
| Log2(CA125) | 1.35 | 1.13–1.61 | 0.001 | 1.61 | 1.32–1.96 | <0.001 |
| ≥35 versus < 35 U/ml | 2.45 | 1.52–3.95 | <0.003 | 2.78 | 1.66–4.65 | <0.001 |
Hazard ratio (HR) estimated from Cox model adjusted for tumor residual, histology and type of chemotherapy.
Figs. 2A and B demonstrate the PFS and OS of normal compared to abnormal CA-125 level at end of treatment, stratified by the type of treatment. Among patients with IV chemotherapy, the median PFS was 26.4 and 9.4 months, respectively, for normal and abnormal CA-125 (P=0.005); for patients treated with IP chemotherapy the median PFS was 30.5 and 16.8 months, respectively (P=0.029). Median OS for patients treated with intravenous chemotherapy and a normal CA-125 was 58.2 months, and for an abnormal CA-125 median OS was 20.7 months (P=0.0003); patients treated with IP chemotherapy had a median OS of 96.2 months for a normal CA-125 compared to 49.7 months for an abnormal CA-125 (P=0.058). Although patients on IP chemotherapy had improved PFS and OS in all subgroups compared to IV chemotherapy, the rates of normalization of CA-125 appeared similar between IV and IP patients.
Fig. 2.
(A) Kaplan–Meier estimate of progression-free survival based on normalization of CA-125 at end of chemotherapy for IV versus IP treatment. (B) Kaplan–Meier estimate of overall survival based on normalization of CA-125 at end of chemotherapy for IV versus IP treatment.
Discussion
Bast et al. first described the CA-125 antigen as a proposed serum marker for patients with ovarian cancer and this is now commonly used to monitor response to therapy and detection of recurrent ovarian cancer [11,12]. The serum CA-125 levels are elevated in greater than 90% of patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer [13]. Markedly elevated CA-125 levels (>500 U/ml) have been associated with a low likelihood of achieving optimal cytoreduction, suggesting that elevations of this ovarian cancer biomarker are associated with tumor aggressiveness [2,3,14–18]. Zorn et al. performed a large analysis of several randomized trials in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer and demonstrated that patients with a higher preoperative CA-125 had decreased survival [14]. Evaluating patients with normal CA-125, Peace et al. showed patients with a nadir value of <10 units/ml had a significantly improved survival when compared to patients having higher levels [16]. Additional reports evaluating the effect of nadir serum CA-125 values of patients and outcomes have been described [17,18]. Patients with low normal values had improved PFS when compared to patients with higher normal values [17,18].
The peritoneum is a tissue that has been reported to have a greater expression of CA-125 when compared to ovarian epithelium [19,20]. Zeimet et al. compared the CA-125 shedding of human peritoneal mesothelial cells to ovarian cancer cell lines. The authors demonstrated that mesothelial cells have a five-fold higher shedding of CA-125 when compared to ovarian cancer cell lines [19]. Patients with non malignant conditions of the peritoneum such as pelvic inflammatory disease, endometriosis, ruptured ectopic pregnancy, chronic renal failure receiving intraperitoneal dialysis, liver cirrhosis may also demonstrate an increased CA-125 due to peritoneal inflammation [20–24]. Studies evaluating serum CA-125 levels after surgery have also demonstrated transient elevations of serum CA-125 levels that are not reflective of disease status [20,21]. Makhija et al. reported on patients with ovarian cancer treated surgery followed by adjuvant intraperitoneal 32P [8]. These patients showed an elevated CA-125 level lasting for 6–12 months which was not reflective of recurrent disease. The results of our current study did not demonstrate any differences in serum CA-125 levels during treatment between the IV and IP groups.
The use of the CA-125 value is important in assessing primary response to therapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Detection of patients who are not responding to adjuvant or salvage chemotherapy will allow for identification of patients who require alternative chemotherapy and may potentially decrease unnecessary side effects from ineffective treatments. Previous studies have reported on the use of CA-125 regression during primary therapy to predict response and survival in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer [2–4]. Buller et al. reported that the rate of CA-125 regression and normalization is an important prognostic factor in patients with advanced ovarian cancer [25]. Richardson et al. showed no difference in CA-125 values in patients treated with IV compared to IP therapy [9]. Our current study agree with the Richardson study and showed that there was no difference in time to normalization of CA-125 values when comparing IV to IP treatment. We also evaluated PFS and OS comparing patients with normal serum CA-125 (<35 U/ml) to abnormal serum CA-125 levels (>35 U/ml) at pre-treatment, pre- 2nd, pre-4th, and pre-6th cycles of chemotherapy and our results showed patients who had a normal CA-125 had an improved PFS and OS. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves demonstrated that at pre-sixth cycle of therapy, patients with a normal CA-125 had an improved survival in both the IP and IV treated patients. Patients with an abnormal CA-125 had decreased survival regardless of the delivery method for the chemotherapy.
This study is a retrospective review of CA125 levels in patients treated with IP chemotherapy and compared these levels to patients treated with IV chemotherapy and there are numerous limitations. These would include that the trial was not designed to specifically address this variable of CA-125 and time to normalization. The CA-125 data were missing in 16%–29% each cycle and the number of patients receiving IP chemotherapy. There is no reference laboratory and the CA-125 levels were assessed at local institutions and may differ in reference ranges. These data may only reflect the interaction with intraperitoneal cisplatin/paclitaxel and serum CA-125 levels. Richard et al. reported decreasing CA125 levels after removal of the intraperitoneal catheters, therefore suggesting an additional interaction between CA-125 levels and the intraperitoneal catheter device may exist [26]. In our current study the CA-125 levels in the intraperitoneal chemotherapy treated group were assessed with the IP catheter in place and data for CA-125 after catheter removal were not available.
This is the largest study to date describing CA-125 levels and trends in patients treated with IP cisplatin and paclitaxel. These results suggest that the same algorithms developed for patients treated with IV chemotherapy may be applied to patients who are being treated with IP chemotherapy. The theoretical increase in intraperitoneal irritation and increase in serum CA-125 levels in patients treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy is plausible however the results of this current study demonstrate that there is no difference in CA-125 levels. This retrospective review demonstrated that there was no difference in serum CA-125 levels irrespective of the delivery method of the chemotherapy (IP versus IV).
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the Gynecologic Oncology Group Administrative Office (CA 27469) and the Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517). The following Gynecologic Oncology Group member institutions participated in this study: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Duke University Medical Center, Abington Memorial Hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, University of Minnesota Medical School, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Colorado Gynecologic Oncology Group P.C., University of California at Los Angeles, University of Washington, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Indiana University School of Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, University of California Medical Center at Irvine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, University of Kentucky, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Washington University School of Medicine, Columbus Cancer Council, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Women's Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, University of Chicago, Tacoma General Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Case Western Reserve University, Tampa Bay Cancer Consortium, North Shore University Hospital, Gynecologic Oncology Network, Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, and Fletcher Allen Health Care.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
References
- 1.Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer Statistics 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71–96. doi: 10.3322/CA.2007.0010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rustin GJ, Gennings JN, Nelstrop AE, Covarrubias H, Lambert HE, Bagshawe KD. Use of CA-1225 to predict survival of patients with ovarian carcinoma. North Thames Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1667–1671. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1989.7.11.1667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rustin GJ, Nelstrop AE, McClean P, Brady MF, McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, et al. Defining response of ovarian carcinoma to initial chemotherapy according to serum CA125. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1545–1551. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.5.1545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Markman M, Federico M, Liu PY, Hannigan E, Alberts D. Significance of early changes in the serum Ca-125 antigen level on overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:195–198. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, Huang HQ, Baergen R, Lele S, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:34–43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Markman M, Bundy BN, Alberts DS, Fowler JM, Clark-Pearson DL, Carson LF, et al. Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderately high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1001–1007. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.4.1001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Alberts DS, Liu PY, Hannigan EV, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide versus intravenous cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide for stage III ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1950–1955. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199612263352603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Makhija S, Spanos WJ, Day TG, Jr, Doering D. CA-125 levels after surgical exploration and radioactive chromic phosphate in ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;63:85–88. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1996.0283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Richardson DL, Seamon LG, Carlson MJ, O'Malley DM, Fowler JM, Copeland LJ, et al. CA125 decline in ovarian cancer patients treated with intravenous versus intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:233–236. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Collett D. Modeling survival data in medical research. 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bast RC, Jr, Freeney M, Lazarus H, et al. Reactivity of a monocloncal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Invest. 1981;68:1331–1337. doi: 10.1172/JCI110380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bast RC, Jr, Klug TL, St John E, Jenison E, Niloff JM, Lazarus H, et al. A radioimmunoassay using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:883–887. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198310133091503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Jacobs I, Bast RC., Jr The Ca-125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:1–12. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chi DS, Venkatraman ES, Masson V, Hoskins WJ. The ability of preoperative serum CA-125 to predict optimal primary tumor cytoreduction in stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:227–231. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zorn KK, Armstrong DK, Tian C, McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Markman M, et al. Significance of pre-treatment CA-125 level in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis of seven gynecologic oncology group protocols. Abstract. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. 2007 [Google Scholar]
- 16.Crawford SM, Peace J. Does the nadir Ca-125 concentration predict long-term outcome after chemotherapy for carcinoma of the ovary? Ann Oncol. 2005;16:47–50. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Markman M, Liu PY, Rothenberg ML, Monk BJ, Brady M, Alberts DS. Pretreatment CA-125 and the risk of relapse in advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1454–1458. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Juretzka MM, Barakat RR, Chi DS, Iasonos A, Dupont J, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. CA125 level as a predictor of progression free survival and overall survival in ovarian cancer patients with surgically defined disease status prior to the initiation of intraperitoneal consolidation therapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:176–180. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zeimet AG, Marth C, Offner FA, et al. Human peritoneal mesothelial cells are more potent than ovarian cancer cells in producing tumor marker CA-125. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;62:384–389. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1996.0253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Epiney M, Bertossa C, Weil A, Campana A, Bischof P. CA125 production by the peritoneum: in-vitro and in-vivo studies. Human Reprod. 2000;15:1261–1265. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.6.1261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Van der Zee AG, Duk J, Aalders JG, et al. The effect of abdominal surgery on the serum concentration of the tumour-associated antigen CA125. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:934–938. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02450.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yedema CA, Kenemans P, Thomas CM, et al. CA 125 serum levels in the early postoperative period do not reflect tumour reduction obtained by cytoreductive surgery. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29:966–971. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(05)80203-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bergmann JF, Bidart JM, George M, Beaugrand M, Levy VG, Bohuon C. Elevation of CA-125 in patients with benign and malignant ascites. Cancer. 1987;59:213–217. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19870115)59:2<213::aid-cncr2820590206>3.0.co;2-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sevinc A, Buyukberber S, Sari R, Kiroqlu Y, Turk HM, Ates M. Elevated serum CA-125 levels in hemodialysis patients with peritoneal, pleural, or pericardial fluids. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:254–257. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Buller RE, Berman ML, Bloss JD, Manetta A, DiSaia PJ. Serum CA125 regression in epithelial ovarian cancer: correlation with reassessment findings and survival. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47:87–92. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(92)90082-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Richard SD, Lesnock JL, Sukumvanich P, Zorn KK, Edwards RP, Kelley JL, et al. Intraperitoneal catheter may prolong time to normalization of CA125 levels. Abstract 95. Tampa FL: SGO; 2008. Mar, [Google Scholar]