Evaluates uterine lavage proteomics for detecting ovarian cancer, suggesting potential for early diagnosis.
5581 Background: Survival in ovarian cancer (OvCA) exceeds 90% when disease is localized, yet most cases present at advanced stage and effective early detection remains elusive. Blood-based liquid biopsies may be limited by low tumor signal in early disease. We evaluated whether organ-adjacent sampling via uterine lavage extracellular vesicle (EV) proteomics combined with machine-learning (ML) classification could enable accurate detection of OvCA and clinically relevant discrimination from endometrial cancer (EndoCA). Methods: Uterine lavage samples were collected under IRB-approved protocols from women undergoing gynecologic evaluation for abnormal uterine bleeding and/or abnormal pelvic imaging. EVs were isolated using an affinity-based capture method and analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Protein features meeting predefined quality thresholds were analyzed using a novel ML pipeline incorporating entropy-based marker scoring and correlation filtering. Classifier performance was assessed using repeated random two-fold validation and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: Among 807 participants, diagnoses included OvCA (n=85), benign conditions (n=488), and EndoCA (n=234). An OvCA-versus-benign classifier derived from a 91-protein panel demonstrated strong discrimination (AUC >0.9). Across 100 validation splits, 83 of 85 OvCA cases were correctly classified, including all stage I cases (27/27). A separate 21-protein classifier distinguished OvCA from EndoCA with a sensitivity of 0.94 and specificity of 0.92. Conclusions: EV proteomic analysis of uterine lavage specimens enables accurate detection of ovarian cancer, including stage I disease, and reliably distinguishes OvCA from EndoCA in women undergoing gynecologic evaluation. These findings support further prospective clinical validation of organ-adjacent EV proteomics as a translational diagnostic strategy for earlier and more precise classification of gynecologic malignancies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martignetti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: