Evaluating Serum HE4: Some Serious Considerations
Aimen Waqar Khana, Hussain Haider
Shahb
a: Department of Medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical
University, Karachi, Pakistan.
b: Department of Medicine, Dow University of Health
Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Dear Dr Papageorghiou,
We have perused with great interest the scholarly article ”Serum HE4
predicts progestin treatment response in endometrial cancer and atypical
hyperplasia: A prognostic study” by Chloe Barr et al. [1]. We
applaud the authors’ diligent efforts in investigating a biomarker that
could independently predict the response to conservative therapy.
However, we wish to draw attention to certain noteworthy aspects upon a
comprehensive evaluation.
Firstly, it is noteworthy that all the women who participated in the
study underwent a preliminary endometrial biopsy before the initiation
of progestin. However, there is no mention of whether women with
relative contraindications such as cervical stenosis, coagulopathy or
obstructive cervical lesions were sampled if they were included in the
study. It is essential to consider these factors as they can
significantly affect the accuracy and reliability of the biopsy results.
Furthermore, it is necessary to note that insufficient tissue sampling
is a common complication of endometrial biopsy, with an average of 31%
of tissues obtained requiring improvement [2]. Considering that this
is typically more prevalent in postmenopausal women, and 61% of the
participants were 50 years or older, it is crucial to standardize the
volume of tissue obtained to ensure fair and precise results. As
outlined in the study, the primary form of progestin therapy was
levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Still, for women
whose devices had been misplaced more than once, an alternative
treatment of oral medroxyprogesterone acetate 500mg was administered
twice daily. This raises a concern regarding whether these women were
closely monitored for compliance with the prescribed treatment regimen.
This is particularly important as non-compliance, particularly with
extended oral therapies, is a common issue that, if present, could skew
the study’s findings. The prognostic potential of pretreatment serum HE4
in predicting therapeutic response has been extensively researched;
however, studies have also reported elevated serum HE4 levels in various
other cancers, including ovarian, pancreatic, breast, lung, and stomach
[3]. Therefore, it is crucial to exclude such patients thoroughly,
as their inclusion could lead to inaccurate results by falsely
accounting for the non-responder count.
Moreover, serum HE4 levels are also known to be influenced by renal
function and status, necessitating adjustment [4]. It is, therefore,
essential to consider and standardize these factors when analyzing the
serum HE4 levels to obtain reliable and valid results. Lastly, it should
be noted that a CLEIA technique was employed for analysis, which has
been reported to significantly overestimate serum HE4 as compared to EIA
[5]. This may raise concerns regarding the validity of the reported
findings, and hence, caution must be exercised when interpreting the
results.
The study focused on endometrial biopsy in women receiving progestin
therapy, but potential complications such as insufficient tissue
sampling and the inclusion of women with contraindications were not
addressed. The study primarily used LNG-IUS but also administered oral
medroxyprogesterone acetate, and compliance monitoring was not
discussed. Serum HE4 levels were examined, but patients with other
cancers or renal issues were not excluded, and the CLEIA technique used
for analysis may have overestimated results. Therefore, caution is
necessary when interpreting the findings of this study.