BlueCross and BlueShield of Montana Medical Policy/Codes
Proteomics-based Testing for the Evaluation of Ovarian (Adnexal) Masses (OVA1 and ROMA Tests)
Chapter: Medicine: Tests
Current Effective Date: July 18, 2013
Original Effective Date: July 18, 2013
Publish Date: July 18, 2013

There are a variety of gene-based biomarkers that have been studied in association with ovarian cancer. Of particular interest have been tests that integrate results from multiple analytes into a risk score to predict the presence of disease. Two tests based on this principle have now been cleared by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in women with adnexal masses as an aid to further assess the likelihood that malignancy is present.

In 2009, it was estimated that more than 21,000 women in the U.S. were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and more than 14,000 died of this disease. (1) The mortality rate depends on three variables: 1) characteristics of the patient; 2) the biology of the tumor (grade, stage, and type); and 3) the quality of treatment (nature of staging, surgery and chemotherapy used). (2) In particular, comprehensive staging and completeness of tumor resection appear to have a positive impact on patient outcome.

Two proteomic tests have now been cleared by the FDA with the intended use to triage patients with adnexal masses. A suggested use of the test is to identify women with a positive test who have a higher likelihood of malignant disease and may benefit from referral to a gynecologic-oncology specialist. Patients with positive results may be considered candidates for referral to a gynecologic oncologist for treatment, which may improve outcomes if the test is accurate at discriminating benign from malignant disease.

Regulatory Status 

On July 16, 2009, the OVA1 test (Vermillion, Inc. Fremont, CA) was cleared for market by the FDA as a 510(k) submission. No predicate was identified, and the review decision was based on the de novo 510(k) review process, which allows novel products with moderate or low-risk profiles and without predicates which would ordinarily require premarket approval as a class III device to be down-classified in an expedited manner and brought to market with a special control as a class II device. The intended use carried a boxed warning: “PRECAUTION: The OVA1™ test should not be used without an independent clinical/radiological evaluation and is not intended to be a screening test or to determine whether a patient should proceed to surgery. Incorrect use of the OVA1™ test carries the risk of unnecessary testing, surgery, and/or delayed diagnosis.”

On September 1, 2011, the ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) test (Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc., Malvern, PA) was cleared by the FDA as a 510(k) submission. Because the OVA1 test had been found to be a class II medical device by virtue of the July 2009 clearance, ROMA was found to be substantially equivalent to that predicate device.


Each benefit plan, summary plan description or contract defines which services are covered, which services are excluded, and which services are subject to dollar caps or other limitations, conditions or exclusions. Members and their providers have the responsibility for consulting the member's benefit plan, summary plan description or contract to determine if there are any exclusions or other benefit limitations applicable to this service or supply.  If there is a discrepancy between a Medical Policy and a member's benefit plan, summary plan description or contract, the benefit plan, summary plan description or contract will govern.


Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (BCBSMT) considers proteomics-based testing for the evaluation of ovarian (adnexal) masses (OVA1 and ROMA tests) experimental, investigational and unproven for all indications, including but not listed to the following:

  • Preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses to triage for malignancy; or
  • Screening for ovarian cancer; or
  • Selecting patients for surgery for an adnexal mass; or
  • Evaluation of patients with clinical or radiologic evidence of malignancy; or
  • Evaluation of patients with nonspecific signs or symptoms suggesting possible malignancy; or
  • Postoperative testing and monitoring to assess surgical outcome and/or to detect recurrent malignant disease following treatment.

Policy Guidelines

CPT instructs that the new 2013 Category I codes cannot be reported with component tests (i.e., codes 86304 and 86305 cannot be reported with 81500, and codes 82172, 82232, 83695, 83700, 84134, 84466, and 86304 cannot be reported with 81503).

Prior to 2013, these tests would most likely be reported using an unlisted CPT code such as 84999 or 8684.

According to one national laboratory’s website, prior to 2013, they reported 83001 and 83002, in addition to 84999 for OVA1, as those additional services are used “to help determine menopausal status so that the appropriate reference range can be applied.”


Literature Review

In 1997, the Society of Surgical Oncology first recommended ovarian cancer surgery and follow-up treatment be performed by physicians with ovarian cancer disease expertise. (3) To date, dozens of articles and several meta-analyses or systemic reviews (2, 4, 5) have been published relevant to this recommendation looking at long-term outcomes, short-term outcomes, and process measures (types of treatment such as complete staging or tumor debulking).

At least two meta-analyses have been performed (4, 5) concluding improved outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer when treated by gynecologic oncologists. Data are most convincing for patients with advanced stage disease. Median improvements in survival for patients treated by non-gynecologic oncologists versus gynecologic oncologists have been variable but impressive with increases recently reported to be up to 8 months (12 to 21 months). (6) In at least some reports, important differences have also been observed showing improved survival in patients with early stage disease, as well when treated by gynecologic oncologists. (5)

A recent systematic review of 198 studies addressing the role of specialty treatment by gynecologic oncologists and evaluation of other practice-related factors (type of hospital, surgical volume, etc.) was more guarded in its analysis. (2) This review noted that not all reports confirmed these findings of improved performance based on sub-specialty. It also noted that in some reports, only patients presenting with certain stages of disease (in most cases advanced stage although in some cases early stage) were studied and found to exhibit treatment differences. Nevertheless, this review also concluded that the use of sub-specialists and better education of treatment options for both primary care physicians and patients was warranted.

The need for proper triage and specialty care for patients with ovarian cancer has recently been reinforced by a report by Grabowski et al. (7) They describe 40 patients seen at a tertiary gynecologic oncology unit after primary operation for ovarian cancer. Based on clinical and pathologic information, 35 of these patients were subjected to repeat surgery. Half of the patients were found to require upstaging; 53% of patients had postoperative chemotherapy recommendations modified. These authors suggest that because many patients are not referred for specialty follow-up, results of poor quality staging may be underestimated in their study.

In an analysis of predictors of comprehensive surgical treatment (meticulous and extensive disease staging, efforts at debulking of the tumor with removal of all visible lesions, lymphadenectomy) in patients with ovarian cancer, Goff et al. (8) observed that comprehensive treatment was linked not only to physician factors but also to a number of simple demographic factors including age, race, insurance status, and geographic location (urban vs. rural). Optimization of treatment for ovarian cancer may clearly be complicated by these factors.

Adult women presenting with an adnexal mass have an estimated 68% likelihood of having a benign lesion. (9) About 6% have borderline tumors, 22%, invasive lesions, and 3%, metastatic disease.

A majority of patients can be treated without use of surgical oncology expertise. Referral guidelines have been published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) for women with pelvic masses that are suspicious for ovarian cancer who are being referred to gynecologic oncologists. (10) In these guidelines, a decision to refer in postmenopausal women was based on the presence of at least one of the following indicators: elevated CA 125, ascites, a nodular or fixed pelvic mass, evidence of abdominal or distant metastasis, or a family history of one or more first-degree relatives with ovarian or breast cancer. A decision to refer in premenopausal women was based on at least one of the following: elevated CA 125, ascites, evidence of abdominal or distant metastasis, or a positive family history.

A validation study (10) has been performed on these criteria, suggesting a high negative predictive value ([NPV] 90% or more) in both premenopausal and postmenopausal patients but a much lower positive predictive value ([PPV], as low as 34%).

Recent publications have appeared describing the use of CA 125 with a symptom index, (11) the use of an “ovarian crescent sign” on ultrasound, (9) the use of 3-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound (12) to provide increased diagnostic reliability in this decision-making process, and most recently the use of an algorithm based on use of key features identified by ACOG/SGO. (8) Since many of these studies have been performed in referral centers, it is not clear how generalizable they are to use in the general population. Further independent validation of these various approaches is needed.

Assessment of a diagnostic technology typically focuses on 3 parameters:

1.      Technical performance – A device is typically assessed with 2 types of studies, those that compare test measurements with a gold standard and those that compare results taken with the same device on different occasions (test-retest);

2.      Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and PPV and NPV in appropriate populations of patients – Evaluation of the ability of a test to accurately diagnose a clinical condition in comparison with the gold standard. The sensitivity of a test is the ability to detect a disease when the condition is present (true-positive), while specificity indicates the ability to detect patients who are suspected of disease but who do not have the condition (true-negative); and

3.      Demonstration that the diagnostic information can be used to improve patient outcomes (clinical utility) – Evaluation of diagnostic performance, therefore, requires independent assessment by the 2 methods in a population of patients who are suspected of disease but who do not all have the disease.

Evidence related to improvement of clinical outcomes with use of this testing assesses the data linking use of a test to changes in health outcomes (clinical utility). While in some cases, tests can be evaluated adequately using technical and diagnostic performance, when a test identifies a new or different group of patients with a disease; randomized trials are needed to demonstrate impact of the test on the net health outcome.

A Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) Assessment was completed in 2012 on “Multi-analyte testing for the evaluation of adnexal masses.” (13) The Assessment included evaluation of both the OVA1 and ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) tests in regards to their impact on health outcomes. The following conclusions were made:

  • The evidence regarding the effect of OVA1 and ROMA and effects on health outcomes is indirect, and based on studies of diagnostic performance of the tests in patients undergoing surgery for adnexal masses.
  1. There are no prospective studies on the use of these tests in patients who present with an adnexal mass.
  2. There are no studies that report the impact of testing on referral patterns or the impact on health outcomes
  • Although the studies show improvements in sensitivity and worsening of specificity with the use of the tests in conjunction with clinical assessment, there are problems in concluding that this results in improved health outcomes. The clinical assessment performed in the studies is not well characterized.
  • OVA1 appears to improve sensitivity for detection of malignancy, however specificity declines so much that most patients test positive.
  • ROMA does not appear to improve the sensitivity of testing to a great extent.
  • Underlying these issues is some uncertainty regarding the benefit of initial treatment by a gynecologic oncologist beyond the need for reoperation is some cases.

Detailed information about the development of both of these proteomic tests can be found from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) describing the FDA clearance review process. (14, 15) Descriptions of the developmental process for the OVA1 test were also published in a perspective by Fung (16) in 2010. This publication clearly outlines the multiple steps used in test development, including decisions to:

1.      Improve and lock in analytical performance before initiating the clinical study,

2.      Separate subsets of samples for training (to establish the multi-marker algorithm) and for validation (to establish performance), and

3.      Develop and craft claims and labeling to assure the adjunctive use of the test results would be clearly understood.

Of interest, candidate biomarkers were selected based on initial studies using mass spectroscopy but were converted to standard immunoassays to improve analytical performance. Seven final markers were evaluated, none of which individually appeared to be highly specific for malignant ovarian disease.

However, the choice of 5 of these (CA 125, prealbumin, apolipoprotein A-1, beta 2 microglobulin, and transferrin) produced a composite profile that did appear to have discriminatory ability. The test, as cleared by FDA, is performed on a blood sample, which is to be sent to a reference laboratory for testing using the 5 immunoassays described above. Results of the 5 determinations are entered manually into an Excel® spreadsheet used by the OvaCalc software. This software contains an algorithm which combines the 5 discrete values into a single unit less numerical score from 0.0 to 10.0.

Details of the algorithm appear proprietary, but development is described as an empiric process, based on use of banked samples from academic partners, on a small prospective study of samples from Europe and using a designated subset of samples from the clinical study used to support submission to the FDA. It appears at an undisclosed point in the developmental process as a result of interaction with FDA; separate cut-points were developed for premenopausal and postmenopausal women.

A similar developmental process was described for ROMA by Moore et al. (17) They studied 9 biomarkers and chose human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) and CA 125 because these markers in tandem produced the best performance. The algorithm developed was subsequently modified to include menopausal status and was independently validated. (18) Separate cut-offs were again used for premenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Technical Performance

The OVA1 is a qualitative serum test that combines immunoassay results for the 5 analytes described above (CA 125, prealbumin, apolipoprotein A-1, beta 2 microglobulin, and transferrin) into a single numerical score. Analytical performance for the test demonstrated good test precision (coefficient of variation (CV) ranging from 1% to 7.4%, depending on the sample levels studied) and good reproducibility (CV from 2.8% to 8.9%). The test appears linear, reagent and samples stable, and there was no observed interference evaluating common endogenous substances (hemoglobin, bilirubin, etc.)

The ROMA test is also a qualitative serum test that combines 2 analytes HE4 EIA and the ARCHITECT CA 125, along with menopausal status into a numerical score. Analytical performance for the ROMA also exhibited good precision with a total CV ranging from 0.49% to 7.72%, depending on both sample values and menopausal status. The reproducibility of the test was acceptable, with a CV that ranged from 0.98 to 25.9%, with highest values observed in patients with low scores, as expected. The reagents are variably stable, and users are instructed to follow package inserts for stability on each analyte used. The test was unaffected by interference with hemoglobin, bilirubin, lipids, or human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA). However, high levels of rheumatoid factor (more than 500 IU/mL) did appear to cause elevations in test values, and testing in patients with elevated rheumatoid factor is not recommended.

Conclusions: Evidence on the technical performance of these tests has been evaluated by the FDA. This information generally indicates acceptable technical performance for use in clinical care.

Diagnostic Performance

Risk scores for both tests are generated according to the specific algorithm used. In the absence of a standard for any of the risk score signals, accuracy has been defined in terms of clinical performance.

Diagnostic performance of the OVA1 test was evaluated in a single prospective, double-blind clinical study using 27 demographically mixed subject enrollment sites. The study was supported by the commercial sponsor of the test. Patients underwent a complete clinical evaluation prior to surgical intervention, and only patients with planned surgical intervention were included in the study. The pre-surgical process for identifying patients for surgery and for establishing a preliminary diagnosis as benign or malignant were not specifically described but were noted to be “based on a variety of clinical assessments.” The study did require at least one imaging test be performed within 12 weeks of surgery. Presumably, use of this somewhat non-standardized diagnostic methodology provides information on how the test works in conjunction with real-world decision making. The study enrolled a total of 743 patients with 146 subjects used in the training set and 516 in the testing set. Seventy-four patients were excluded because of missing information or samples. All patients had adnexal masses and were scheduled for surgery. The final prevalence of cancer in the population was 27%.

Using pathologic diagnosis as the gold standard, test performance, when combined with presurgical assessment for benign disease, was as follows in the hands of non-gynecological oncologists: 

Clinical assessment alone

Clinical assessment with OVA1













* Confidence intervals not provided.

Diagnostic performance of the ROMA test was also evaluated in a prospective, blinded clinical trial using 13 demographically mixed subject enrollment sites with company sponsorship. Patients all presented with an adnexal mass and were scheduled to undergo surgery. An Initial Cancer Risk Assessment (ICRA) was performed to determine the detection of benign versus malignant lesions before testing. The prevalence of cancer was 15%.

Using pathologic diagnosis as the gold standard, test performance, when combined with presurgical assessment for benign disease, was as follows in the hands of a mixed population of generalist and specialist physicians: 


ICRA alone

ICRA with ROMA testing


77% (66 to 86%)

91% (81 to 96%)


84% (80 to 88%)

67% (61 to 71%)


46% (17 to 56%)

33% (26 to 40%)


96% (93 to 97%)

98% (95 to 99%)

Both tests when added to pre-testing clinical assessment produced a fall in the PPV of diagnosis with a small increase in the negative predictive value. The changes observed in the NPV were of uncertain statistical and clinical significance.

Of note, one recent European study (19) demonstrated that in the hands of radiologists at a cancer institute, subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to ROMA in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. No similar study has been performed with the OVA1 test. Two additional studies have been performed looking at ROMA testing and have both questioned the value of HE4 in identifying ovarian cancers. (20, 21) Again similar studies have not been reported looking at individual components of the OVA1 test. Further prospective studies are needed for both assays to understand their proper role in patient care.

Conclusions: Use of the ROMA and OVA1 proteomic tests in combination with clinical assessment appears to produce very modest changes in diagnostic performance for identifying adnexal masses negative for ovarian cancer.

Evidence related to improvement of clinical outcomes (Clinical Utility)

No outcome studies have been performed using the OVA1 test or the ROMA test. It is not clear what impact use of either test would have on long-term healthcare outcomes. As is the case for false-positive cases identified and referred using existing clinical and radiologic diagnostic criteria, there is no evidence of harm to patients identified as false-positives.

The use of genomic testing to triage patients for malignancy may be only one of many factors in decision making about where treatment should be delivered. The clinical significance of the addition of these tests to currently used diagnostic modalities is unknown.

In an editorial on the OVA1 test (22) published in August 2010 in Obstetrics and Gynecology describing the decision-making process for use of the test, 2 important points were re-enforced: 1) that the test should not be used for screening, and 2) that if a careful clinical assessment of risk of malignancy warrants referral to a gynecologic oncologist, the OVA1 test should not be performed. In these cases, a negative test would not negate appropriate referral. These points have been highlighted in a recent FDA action establishing a black box warning for this category of product.

Conclusions: Direct evidence on the clinical utility of the proteomic tests is lacking. For patients who are considering treatment by a non-gynecologic oncologist, use of proteomic tests will decrease the likelihood that an adnexal mass is categorized as benign when it is actually malignant. This might impact referral patterns to a gynecologic oncologist and decrease the likelihood that a patient will require a second follow-up procedure for comprehensive staging, lymphadenectomy, and/or tumor debulking, but empirical evidence of this is lacking. Because of the unknown effect on referral patterns, the effect on health outcomes is uncertain.

Black Box Warning: On December 10, 2011, the FDA published an amendment to the regulation for classifying ovarian adnexal mass assessment score test systems to restrict these devices so that a prescribed warning statement that addresses off-label risks be highlighted by a black box warning. (23) The warning is intended to mitigate the risk to health associated with off-label use as a screening test, stand-alone diagnostic test, or as a test to determine whether or not to proceed with surgery.

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

Society for Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Statement:

The Society for Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) addressed the use of the OVA1 test in a bulletin issued in 2009. (24) This document included the following statements:

  • The OVA1 test…may be a useful tool in identifying women who should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist for their ovarian cancer surgery.
  • This test has not been approved for use as an ovarian cancer screening tool, nor has it been proven to result in early detection or reduce the risk of death from this disease.
  • Results from the OVA1 test should not be interpreted independently, nor be used in place of a physician’s clinical assessment.
  • Physicians are strongly encouraged to reference the SGO/ACOG Pelvic Mass Guidelines to determine an appropriate care plan for their patients.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Guidelines:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) addressed the use of the OVA1 test in their guidelines on the role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer. (25) This document made the following statements:

  • The OVA1 test appears to improve the predictability of ovarian cancer in women with pelvic masses.
  • This is not a screening test, but may be useful for evaluating women with a pelvic mass.
  • Clinical utility is not yet established.

National Cancer Institute (NCI) Statement:

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) included a discussion of proteomics in their publication on the Genetics of Breast and Ovarian Cancer. (26) The following statement was included in their discussion on proteomics:

  • These (proteomic) studies have generally been small case-control studies that are limited by sample size and the number of early-stage cancer cases included. Further evaluation is needed to determine whether any additional markers identified in this fashion have clinical utility for the early detection of ovarian cancer in the unselected clinical population of interest.  Level of Evidence: 5

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued a publication in 2011 on the recognition and management of ovarian cancer. (27) These guidelines made the following recommendations:

  • The evidence suggests that the combination of HE4 and serum CA125 is more specific, but less sensitive than either marker in isolation.
  • There was no evidence to suggest that multiple tumour markers were much better than the two marker combination of serum CA125 and HE4.
  • The routine use of CA 125 is recommended; the data on other serum markers is not substantial enough to recommend their use.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines:

The 2012 version of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (28) addressed the use of the ROMA test in guidelines version V3.2012 on ovarian cancer. The following statement was included in this guideline:

  • It has been suggested that specific biomarkers (serum HE4 and CA125) along with an algorithm (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm [ROMA]) may be useful for determining whether a mass is malignant or benign.
  • Currently, the NCCN panel does not recommend the use of these biomarkers for determining the status of an undiagnosed pelvic mass.


The OVA1 and ROMA tests have both been analytically validated and clinical performance has been reported in prospective multi-center clinical trials. Changes in the observed sensitivity and NPV of testing has been small and of uncertain diagnostic value. No studies have been performed that directly evaluate the impact on referral patterns, and no studies have evaluated the impact on health outcomes. Since performance of the original trials prepared for FDA submissions, neither test has had evaluation of performance independently confirmed by independent investigators. As a result of the evidence, these tests are considered experimental, investigational and unproven pending more information about its performance and impact on outcomes. All other uses of this test, including use as a screening tool for ovarian cancer, are also considered experimental, investigational and unproven.


Disclaimer for coding information on Medical Policies

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive.

The presence or absence of procedure, service, supply, device or diagnosis codes in a Medical Policy document has no relevance for determination of benefit coverage for members or reimbursement for providers. Only the written coverage position in a medical policy should be used for such determinations.

Benefit coverage determinations based on written Medical Policy coverage positions must include review of the member’s benefit contract or Summary Plan Description (SPD) for defined coverage vs. non-coverage, benefit exclusions, and benefit limitations such as dollar or duration caps. 

ICD-9 Codes

220, 236.2, 239.5, 789.33, 789.34

ICD-10 Codes

D27.0 – D27.9, D39.10 – D39.12, D49.5, R19.01, R19.02

Procedural Codes: 81500, 81503
  1. Bristow RE, Zahurak ML, Diaz-Montes TP et al. Impact of surgeon and hospital ovarian cancer surgical case volume on in-hospital mortality and related short-term outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 115(3):334-8.
  2. du Bois A, Rochon J, Pfisterer J et al. Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112(2):422-36.
  3. Hoskins W, Rice L, Rubin S. Ovarian cancer surgical practice guidelines. Society of Surgical Oncology practice guidelines. Oncology (Williston Park) 1997; 11(6):896-900, 03-4.
  4. Vernooij F, Heintz P, Witteveen E et al. The outcomes of ovarian cancer treatment are better when provided by gynecologic oncologists and in specialized hospitals: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 105(3):801-12.
  5. Giede KC, Kieser K, Dodge J et al. Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 99(2):447-61.
  6. Tingulstad S, Skjeldestad FE, Hagen B. The effect of centralization of primary surgery on survival in ovarian cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102(3):499-505.
  7. Grabowski JP, Harter P, Buhrmann C et al. Re-operation outcome in patients referred to a gynecologic oncology center with presumed ovarian cancer FIGO I-IIIA after sub-standard initial surgery. Surg Oncol 2012; 21(1):31-5.
  8. Goff BA, Matthews BJ, Larson EH et al. Predictors of comprehensive surgical treatment in patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer 2007; 109(10):2031-42.
  9. Van Holsbeke C, Van Belle V, Leone FP et al. Prospective external validation of the 'ovarian crescent sign' as a single ultrasound parameter to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36(1):81-7.
  10. ACOG Committee Opinion: number 280, December 2002. The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100(6):1413-6.
  11. Andersen MR, Goff BA, Lowe KA et al. Use of a Symptom Index, CA125, and HE4 to predict ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116(3):378-83.
  12. Alcazar JL, Rodriguez D. Three-dimensional power Doppler vascular sonographic sampling for predicting ovarian cancer in cystic-solid and solid vascularized masses. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28(3):275-81.
  13. Multi-Analyte Testing for the Evaluation of Adnexal Masses. Chicago, Illinois: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Program (2012); volume 27, tab TBA.
  14. FDA – U.S. Food and Drug Administration. PRODISC-L Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data. Available at (accessed 2011 August).
  15. FDA – U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) Substantial Equivalence Determination Decision Summary: OVA1™ Test (K081754). Available at <> (accessed 2011 March).
  16. Fung ET. A recipe for proteomics diagnostic test development: the OVA1 test, from biomarker discovery to FDA clearance. Clin Chem 2010; 56(2):327-9.
  17. Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC et al. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 108(2):402-8.
  18. Moore RG, Miller MC, Disilvestro P et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm in women with a pelvic mass. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118(2 Pt 1):280-8.
  19. Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B et al. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48(11):1649-56.
  20. Partheen K, Kristjansdottir B, Sundfeldt K. Evaluation of ovarian cancer biomarkers HE4 and CA-125 in women presenting with a suspicious cystic ovarian mass. J Gynecol Oncol 2011; 22(4):244-52.
  21. Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E et al. HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer 2011; 104(5):863-70.
  22. Muller CY. Doctor, should I get this new ovarian cancer test-OVA1? Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116(2 Pt 1):246-7.
  23. Medical Devices: Ovarian adnexal mass assessment score test system; Labeling; Black box restrictions. 21 CFR Part 866, Federal Register 2011; 76(251):82128-82123.
  24. SGO – Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Statement regarding OVA1. 2009. Available at (accessed 2012 September).
  25. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic P. Committee Opinion No. 477: the role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117(3):742-6.
  26. NCI – National Cancer Institute. PDQ Genetics of Breast and Ovarian Cancer. 2012. Available at (accessed 2012 September).
  27. NIH – National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Recognition and Initial Management of Ovarian Cancer. Clinical Guideline 122. 2011. Available at (accessed 2012 September).
  28. NCCN – National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Ovarian Cancer Including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology 2012. Available at http:/ (accessed 2012 September).
  29. Proteomics-based Testing for the Evaluation of Ovarian (Adnexal) Masses. Chicago, Illinois: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Medical Policy Reference Manual (2012 November) Medicine 2.04.62.
May 2013  New 2013 BCBSMT medical policy.  Proteomics-based testing for the evaluation of ovarian (adnexal) masses (OVA1 and ROMA tests) is considered experimental, investigational and unproven for all indications. 
®Registered marks of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans. ®LIVE SMART. LIVE HEALTHY. is a registered mark of BCBSMT, an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, serving the residents and businesses of Montana.
CPT codes, descriptions and material only are copyrighted by the American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. No fee schedules, basic units, relative values or related listings are included in CPT. The AMA assumes no liability for the data contained herein. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use. CPT only © American Medical Association.
Proteomics-based Testing for the Evaluation of Ovarian (Adnexal) Masses (OVA1 and ROMA Tests)