Background: According to extensive epidemiologic data, infertility is associated with increased ovarian cancer risk. Previous studies showed that both women with infertility and those with ovarian cancer have autoantibodies to ovarian antigens. The objective was to determine if women with infertility have antibodies to mesothelin, a well-characterized ovarian cancer antigen.

Methods: Sera were obtained from women with infertility (n = 109), ovarian cancer (n = 28), benign ovarian tumors or cysts (n = 24), and from healthy women (n = 152). Infertility included those with a risk for ovarian cancer; endometriosis (n = 23), ovulatory dysfunction (n = 17), premature ovarian failure (POF; n = 25) and unexplained infertility (n = 44). Sera were assayed for mesothelin antibodies and for circulating mesothelin antigen by immunoassay and compared with assay control sera (n = 16) to determine a positive result.

Results: Mesothelin antibodies were significantly more frequent in women with prematurely reduced ovarian function including ovulatory dysfunction (59%), ovarian failure (44%) and unexplained infertility (25%) compared with controls. In contrast, women with endometriosis, who also have a high risk for ovarian cancer, did not have mesothelin antibodies. Serum levels of mesothelin were rarely elevated in women with infertility but were high in most patients with ovarian cancer.

Conclusions and Impact: We show for the first time that antibodies to mesothelin, a well-characterized ovarian cancer antigen, occur in some women with epidemiologic risk for ovarian cancer. The results suggest it may be possible to identify which women with infertility have ovarian cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(9); 1970–8. ©2011 AACR.

Numerous epidemiologic studies indicate that there is an association between infertility and ovarian cancer (1–5), independent of infertility drug treatment. In a recent study of infertility using a cancer registry in Sweden, the OR for ovarian cancer was 3.93 (6). According to a 25-year longitudinal investigation of more than 12,000 women in the United States, the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for ovarian cancer risk in infertile women is double that of the general population (SIR = 1.98; refs. 7, 8).

Infertility affects more than 11% of reproductive age women and is defined as the failure to conceive during 1 year of unprotected intercourse (9, 10). Diagnostic categories of female infertility may involve endometriosis (uterine cells outside the uterus), tubal factors (inflamed or mechanically blocked fallopian tubes), uterine factors (e.g., failed implantation), and ovarian factors such as ovulatory dysfunction, diminished ovarian reserve (reduced or absent oocyte content which includes premature ovarian failure), unexplained infertility and multiple causes (9–11). Unexplained infertility is a diagnosis of exclusion used when the standard clinical and laboratory data are normal. Premature ovarian failure (POF) is defined as spontaneous menopause before age 40 (12–14) and may be induced or idiopathic.

Different categories of infertility have different ovarian cancer risk. In the longitudinal infertility study, the highest risk factors for ovarian cancer compared with the general population were nulliparity (never conceived; SIR = 1.98) and endometriosis (SIR = 2.48) followed by anovulation (SIR = 1.94; refs. 7, 8). Some factors are additive; for example, the SIR for women with endometriosis who never conceived was 4.19. A relationship between POF and ovarian cancer has not been examined systematically although there is evidence that early age at menopause (15–17) or follicle depletion and early ovarian failure (18, 19) is associated with ovarian cancer risk. In cross-sectional studies, unexplained infertility is associated with an increased risk for ovarian cancer [e.g., SIR = 2.94 (20) or OR = 1.19 (4)].

The etiologies for infertility are multifactorial and include genetic, environmental, endocrine, and autoimmune factors. We showed that some patients with unexplained infertility or POF (21–23) have antiovarian antibodies that indicate an autoimmune disorder targeting the ovary (22, 24–26). In addition, a subset of women from all categories undergoing treatment for infertility have poor ovarian estrogen responses to follicle stimulating hormone (FSH); this is also associated with antiovarian antibodies (27). Although FSH levels are the gold standard for assessing ovarian function (28), antiovarian antibodies seem to be independently associated with subclinical changes in ovarian function (29).

Cancer patients often make antibodies to antigens that are expressed in tumor cells even though some of the antigens are also expressed by normal cells (30–35). Women with ovarian cancer also have antiovarian antibodies similar to women with infertility (36) indicating they have a similar autoimmune response (30, 36, 37). This is congruent with reports of antitumor antibodies to a variety of antigens in ovarian cancer (30, 37, 38). It has been hypothesized that autoimmunity increases the risk for cancer (32, 35, 39, 40) and that a weak tumor-directed immune response can stimulate tumor growth (41, 42).

To gain more insight into the relationship among autoantibodies, infertility, and ovarian cancer, we tested sera from women with infertility for mesothelin antibodies. Mesothelin expression is elevated in ovarian tumors (43), is shed into the circulation (44) and circulating mesothelin has relatively high specificity for ovarian cancer (45, 46). Previous studies showed that mesothelin antibodies occur in women with ovarian cancer (47, 48) and pelvic inflammatory disease (48). Thus, mesothelin was chosen because it is one of the best characterized ovarian cancer antigens and has relatively high specificity for malignant cells (43).

Patients

A total of 329 sera were assessed from healthy controls, infertility patients and cancer patients. All sera were collected according to protocols approved by the relevant Institutional Review Boards.

Infertility patient sera (n = 109) were collected from infertility clinics at Rush University Medical Center (n = 26), the Center for Human Reproduction (courtesy of Dr. Carolyn Coulam; n = 16) and the University of Ulm (courtesy of Dr. Cosima Brucker; n = 67). Sera represented idiopathic POF (n = 25), endometriosis (n = 23), ovulatory dysfunction (n = 17), and unexplained infertility (n = 44). The evaluation included semen analysis, a postcoital test, ovulation (luteal phase progesterone), tubal patency (open and unobstructed fallopian tubes), and measurement of FSH and estrogen. The average duration of infertility was 3.6 ± 1.5 (range 2–8) years for all study patients. The average number of prior in vitro fertilization treatment cycles was minimal (less than 1 per patient).

Patients with idiopathic POF experienced menopause at an average of age of 26.6 ± 9.1 years and had elevated, menopausal day 3 FSH levels (i.e., > 10 mIU/mL; Table 1). Endometriosis patients were obtained from the infertility clinic (n = 14) or from the gynecology clinic (n = 9) and had surgically confirmed endometriosis without other conditions. Hormone levels were not available for the later group. For endometriosis patients obtained through the infertility clinic, day 3 FSH was in the normal range (Table 1). Ovulatory dysfunction was defined as oligomenorrhea (35–90 days between cycles) or anovulation (no evidence of ovulation) and excluded polycystic ovary syndrome (49). Women with ovulatory dysfunction had slightly elevated, but near normal, day 3 FSH levels (Table 1). Patients with unexplained infertility had normal clinical and laboratory results (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of patient characteristics

nAgeFSH
Patient categorymean ± SD (range), ymean ± SD (range), mIU/mL
Normal 
 Group I 31 38.7 ± 15.9 (18–65) nd 
 Group II 121 nd nd 
Infertility patients 
 Endometriosis (infertility clinic) 14 38.3 ± 7.7 (28–60) 7.1 ± 2.6 (4.9–12.1) 
 Endometriosis (gynecology clinic) 46.0 ± 11.1 (36–70) nd 
 Ovulatory dysfunction 17 31.7 ± 4.7 (24–40) 16.9 ± 24.9 (1.2–72) 
 POF 25 30.1 ± 6.6 (19–42) 60.4 ± 37.8 (19.1–123) 
 Unexplained infertility 44 33.2 ± 4.7 (21–49) 7.4 ± 3.1 (1.9–16.5) 
Benign tumor or cyst 24 56.5 ± 15.7 (26–85) nd 
Ovarian cancer 28 56.5 ± 15.7 (26–85) nd 
Assay serum controls 16 56.5 ± 15.7 (26–85) nd 
Total 329   
nAgeFSH
Patient categorymean ± SD (range), ymean ± SD (range), mIU/mL
Normal 
 Group I 31 38.7 ± 15.9 (18–65) nd 
 Group II 121 nd nd 
Infertility patients 
 Endometriosis (infertility clinic) 14 38.3 ± 7.7 (28–60) 7.1 ± 2.6 (4.9–12.1) 
 Endometriosis (gynecology clinic) 46.0 ± 11.1 (36–70) nd 
 Ovulatory dysfunction 17 31.7 ± 4.7 (24–40) 16.9 ± 24.9 (1.2–72) 
 POF 25 30.1 ± 6.6 (19–42) 60.4 ± 37.8 (19.1–123) 
 Unexplained infertility 44 33.2 ± 4.7 (21–49) 7.4 ± 3.1 (1.9–16.5) 
Benign tumor or cyst 24 56.5 ± 15.7 (26–85) nd 
Ovarian cancer 28 56.5 ± 15.7 (26–85) nd 
Assay serum controls 16 56.5 ± 15.7 (26–85) nd 
Total 329   

nd = not determined.

Sera from patients with ovarian cancer or benign gynecologic conditions were obtained at entry into the clinic for evaluation of a pelvic mass at Rush University Medical Center. Patients had no prior treatment or surgery for cancer. Study patients had ovarian cancer (n = 28; n = 21 stages III–IV with 15 serous, 5 endometrioid, and 1 mucinous histology; n = 7 stages I–II with 4 endometrioid, 1 mixed, 1 clear cell, and 1 serous histology), benign conditions (n = 24; ovarian cysts or fibroids) or surgically confirmed endometriosis (described above).

Controls for assay background (“serum controls”; n = 16) were obtained at Rush University Medical Center from healthy women without a history of diagnosed infertility, autoimmune disease or a history of cancer and were collected at the same time as the experimental sera. The assay controls were used to assess nonspecific serum reactions and to determine a cutoff value for a positive result. Also, experimental comparison groups were used. Sera (n = 31) from healthy women were obtained from a commercial source (ProMedDx; designated “Normal-I”). A second set (“Normal-II”; n = 121) contributed by I. Hellstrom were originally obtained from Dr. O. Nilsson at Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc., and were used as normal controls for assay development. The age of the normal-II group is not known. Information regarding fertility for both normal groups was not available.

Serum

Blood was collected into a red top tube, the serum separated and aliquots stored at −80°C.

Recombinant mesothelin

A modification of a mammalian expression vector was used to produce recombinant mesothelin (50). Mesothelin cDNA fragment fused with CMV promoter was amplified by PCR using Pfx50 DNA polymerase (Invitrogen) with sense primer (5′-AAATTTCTCGAGCGATGTACGGGCCAGATATA-3′) and antisense primer (5′-AAAAAACCTGCAGGCTACGTGTCTGCAGGGGGCAT-3′). The PCR product was purified with a QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (QIAGEN) according to the manufacturer's protocol. The recombinant plasmid CIHDpa-mesothelin was constructed by replacing IFNγ with mesothelin fragment in the CIHDpa plasmid (50), which was in-licensed from the National University of Singapore. The plasmid was verified by restriction enzyme digestion and by sequencing the completely inserted cDNA.

CIHDpa and mesothelin fragments were digested with XhoI and SbfI restriction enzymes. CIHDpa and mesothelin fragments were extracted from 1% agarose electrophoresis gels using QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen). Fragments were ligated by T4 DNA ligase (Invitrogen; 16°C, overnight), transformed into E. coli OneShot TOP10 competent cells (Invitrogen) and plated on LB agar containing ampicillin. For confirmation of the target gene, the plasmid DNA was extracted with a MiniPrep kit (Qiagen) and then examined for inserts of the expected sizes by enzyme digestion (XhoI and SbfI), PCR, and sequencing.

Endotoxin-free mesothelin recombinant plasmid was prepared with an Endo-free Maxi kit (Qiagen). Two microgram plasmid was added into 2 μL of Lipofactamine and incubated (20 minutes). DNA-Lipofectamine complexes were added into 1 million CHO-DG44 cells. The cells were grown in suspension in 125 mL Corning plastic cell culture flasks and incubated (37°C; 5% CO2, 95% air; 24 hours). The cells were transferred into selection medium (CHO medium without HT supplement). The number of transfected cells was greater than 95% after 30 days.

Culture media were tested for mesothelin using a sandwich ELISA (51, 52). Supernatants were diluted in PBS containing 1% BSA in a ratio of 1:10. The data showed that mesothelin was highly expressed by the CHO cells and was released into the culture media. Mesothelin was purified from the culture supernatants by an antibody affinity chromatography column and the purified mesothelin was verified by protein sequencing.

Antibody tests

Sera were tested at a dilution of 1:20 for antibodies to recombinant human mesothelin and selected sera were retested at a dilution of 1:100 using a modified assay (48).

Briefly, plates (Medisorp; Fisher Scientific) were coated (100 uL/well, 16 hours, 4°C) with recombinant mesothelin in PBS (10 mmol/L, pH 7.4). For each serum, control wells without antigen (coating buffer only) were similarly incubated as a control for nonspecific binding of serum to plastic. Nonspecific binding was blocked with 3% BSA in PBS (15 minutes, 22°C) and serum (100 uL/well, 1:20 or 1:100 diluted in PBS+1% BSA) was added (1 hour, 22°C). Wells were washed in PBS containing 0.1% Tween. Goat anti-human IgG-HRP (Invitrogen) in PBS containing 3% BSA (100 uL/well; 1 hour, 22°C) was added. After washing, SureBlueTM TMB peroxidase substrate (KPL) was added (100 uL/well; 15 minutes in darkness), and then STOP solution (100 uL/well; KPL). Plates were read at 450 nm with a Dynatech MR5000 plate reader (Dynatech Laboratories). For each serum sample, optical density values in wells without antigen were subtracted from the optical density value in wells with mesothelin. Data was analyzed either by comparison of optical density values or using a cutoff value to determine an antibody positive result. The cutoff value was equivalent to the mean optical value for the serum assay controls (n = 16) plus 2 SD (95% CI) or 3 SD (99% CI).

Measurement of circulating mesothelin

Mesothelin levels in sera were measured using a standard sandwich immunoassay (R&D Systems). Rat anti-human mesothelin capture antibody and biotinylated rat anti-human mesothelin detection antibody were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Mesothelin was measured in sera diluted 1:40 in Reagent Diluent (R&D Systems). The recombinant human mesothelin standard curve range was 62.5 to 8,000 pg/mL. The analytic limit of detection (negative control mean + 2SD) was 79.3 pg/mL.

Statistical analysis

The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the optical density values and the mesothelin levels. Significant differences in the proportion of mesothelin antibody positive sera were determined using the Fishers exact test. The correlation between mesothelin levels and antimesothelin optical density values was compared and significance was determined using Pearson's or Spearman's rank correlation as appropriate. For all tests P < 0.05 was considered significant.

In an initial analysis of mesothelin antibody levels the 2 comparison groups (normal-I and normal-II) were evaluated separately and in combination. Since there was no difference between normal-I and normal-II (P > 0.6) using either the optical density values or a cutoff value to determine the number of antibody positive sera, and since results were similar when the groups were combined, all further analysis used the combined normal sera group for comparisons.

The mean levels of antibody measured as the optical density at 1:20, were significantly higher in women with POF (P = 0.00001), ovulatory dysfunction (P = 0.0003), unexplained infertility (P = 0.038), and endometriosis (P = 0.041) compared with normal sera (Fig. 1 and Table 2). Optical density values for sera from women with ovarian cancer or benign tumors did not differ and they did not differ from normal sera (P > 0.2).

Figure 1.

Box plots of mesothelin antibody shown as optical density (OD) values by study group. Sera were tested at 1:20 (top graph) and 1:100 (bottom graph). Each box plot shows the median (50th percentile; dark bar), values to the 1.5 interquartile range (whiskers), 25th to 75th percentile range (box) and outliers (◯,★). The horizontal dotted line shows the cutoff value (mean serum control OD + 2SD) used to determine antibody positive results as summarized in Table 2.

Figure 1.

Box plots of mesothelin antibody shown as optical density (OD) values by study group. Sera were tested at 1:20 (top graph) and 1:100 (bottom graph). Each box plot shows the median (50th percentile; dark bar), values to the 1.5 interquartile range (whiskers), 25th to 75th percentile range (box) and outliers (◯,★). The horizontal dotted line shows the cutoff value (mean serum control OD + 2SD) used to determine antibody positive results as summarized in Table 2.

Close modal
Table 2.

Summary of mesothelin antibody and antigen in infertility

 Antibody(1:20)Antibody(1:100)Antigen level
OD value% POS (2SD)% POS (3SD)OD value% POS (2SD)(ng/mL)
Mean ± SD% (n/total)% (n/total)Mean ± SD% (n/total)Mean ± SD (range)
Normal 0.37 ± 0.4 19% (29/152) 11% (17/152) 0.16 ± 0.10 6% (5/82) 18.6 ± 8.5 (10.2–49.6) 
Infertility patients 
 Endometriosis 0.47 ± 0.34* 35% (8/23) 26% (4/23) 0.19 ± 0.14 14% (3/22) 16.9 ± 7.7 (8.3–37.8) 
 Ovulatory dysfunction 1.01 ± 0.74*** 65% (11/17)*** 59% (10/17)*** 0.49 ± 0.38*** 50% (8/16)*** 24.1 ± 8.4 (11.7–33.3) 
 POF 0.88 ± 0.78*** 52% (13/25)** 44% (11/25)** 0.53 ± 0.51*** 33% (5/15)** 20.5 ± 9.9 (10.8–45.6) 
 Unexplained infertility 0.53 ± 0.51* 32% (14/44) 25% (11/44)* 0.24 ± 0.21 26% (10/38)** 24.7 ± 12.3 (12.6–59.1)* 
Benign tumor or cyst 0.38 ± 0.35 21% (5/24) 21% (5/24) 0.16 ± 0.11 0 (0/18) 14.1 ± 6.9 (6.0–32.5) 
Ovarian cancer 0.41 ± 0.33 36% (10/28) 14% (4/28) 0.15 ± 0.13 11% (2/18) 102.9 ± 113.9 (12.1–434.7)*** 
Assay serum control 0.27 ± 0.13 ref. ref. 0.19 ± 0.09 ref. 12.0 ± 5.6 (5.3–38.1) 
 Antibody(1:20)Antibody(1:100)Antigen level
OD value% POS (2SD)% POS (3SD)OD value% POS (2SD)(ng/mL)
Mean ± SD% (n/total)% (n/total)Mean ± SD% (n/total)Mean ± SD (range)
Normal 0.37 ± 0.4 19% (29/152) 11% (17/152) 0.16 ± 0.10 6% (5/82) 18.6 ± 8.5 (10.2–49.6) 
Infertility patients 
 Endometriosis 0.47 ± 0.34* 35% (8/23) 26% (4/23) 0.19 ± 0.14 14% (3/22) 16.9 ± 7.7 (8.3–37.8) 
 Ovulatory dysfunction 1.01 ± 0.74*** 65% (11/17)*** 59% (10/17)*** 0.49 ± 0.38*** 50% (8/16)*** 24.1 ± 8.4 (11.7–33.3) 
 POF 0.88 ± 0.78*** 52% (13/25)** 44% (11/25)** 0.53 ± 0.51*** 33% (5/15)** 20.5 ± 9.9 (10.8–45.6) 
 Unexplained infertility 0.53 ± 0.51* 32% (14/44) 25% (11/44)* 0.24 ± 0.21 26% (10/38)** 24.7 ± 12.3 (12.6–59.1)* 
Benign tumor or cyst 0.38 ± 0.35 21% (5/24) 21% (5/24) 0.16 ± 0.11 0 (0/18) 14.1 ± 6.9 (6.0–32.5) 
Ovarian cancer 0.41 ± 0.33 36% (10/28) 14% (4/28) 0.15 ± 0.13 11% (2/18) 102.9 ± 113.9 (12.1–434.7)*** 
Assay serum control 0.27 ± 0.13 ref. ref. 0.19 ± 0.09 ref. 12.0 ± 5.6 (5.3–38.1) 

Significance is indicated as *, P = 0.05–0.01; **, P = 0.01–0.001; ***, P < 0.001.

When a cutoff value (95% CI) was used (Table 2), the number of positive sera was significantly higher in women with POF (P = 0.002) and ovulatory dysfunction (P = 0.0002) compared with normal sera. The number of positive sera in unexplained infertility, endometriosis or benign conditions did not differ from normal sera (P > 0.2). The number of positive sera in ovarian cancer (P = 0.077) and unexplained infertility approached significance (P = 0.097) compared with normal sera. Within the ovarian cancer group, mesothelin antibody occurred in 50% (8 of 16) sera from women with serous histology tumors, only 11% (1 of 9) sera from patients with endometrioid tumors and 1 serum from a patient with mixed clear cell and endometrioid tumor.

Two more stringent conditions for determining the number of positive sera were used. A higher cutoff value (99% CI) reduced the proportion of positive sera in all groups (Table 2). Using the higher cutoff value, sera from women with POF (P = 0.0005) or ovulatory dysfunction (P = 0.0001) remained significantly different from normal sera.

Similarly, when sera were tested at a higher dilution of 1:100, only the optical density values for POF (P = 0.0001) and ovulatory dysfunction (P = 0.00008) differed significantly compared with normal sera (Table 2). However, the number of positive sera (95% CI) in unexplained infertility (P = 0.005) became significant and the number of antibody positive sera remained significant in POF (P = 0.007) and ovulatory dysfunction (P = 0.0001).

Overall, the decrease in the proportion of positive sera associated with dilution of sera from 1:20 to 1:100 was greater than 75% for benign conditions, endometriosis, normal, and ovarian cancer, while the relative decrease of antibody positive sera in infertility groups was less than 40%. Taken together the results show that mesothelin antibodies in the infertility groups, particularly POF and ovulatory dysfunction, have a higher titer and possibly a higher affinity than antimesothelin detected in normal, benign or ovarian cancer sera.

Mesothelin antigen levels in serum were significantly higher in women with ovarian cancer (P = 0.00003), benign conditions (P = 0.01) or unexplained infertility (P = 0.01) compared with normal women (Fig. 2 and Table 2). On the basis of optical density values, mesothelin antibody and antigen were not correlated (Spearman's correlation coefficient, 0.06, P = 0.4). Within individual categories, mesothelin antigen, and antibody were not significantly correlated except in ovarian cancer (correlation coefficient = 0.49, P = 0.015). However, as seen in Figure 3, the association is scattered; some individuals have elevated mesothelin, some have mesothelin antibody, and some have both.

Figure 2.

Box plot of circulating mesothelin antigen levels (ng/mL) by study group. The box plot is described in Figure 1. The horizontal dotted line shows the mean normal value + 2SD for reference. Mean values for each group are summarized in Table 2.

Figure 2.

Box plot of circulating mesothelin antigen levels (ng/mL) by study group. The box plot is described in Figure 1. The horizontal dotted line shows the mean normal value + 2SD for reference. Mean values for each group are summarized in Table 2.

Close modal
Figure 3.

Comparison of mesothelin antibody and circulating antigen in ovarian cancer (•) and benign tumor (▵) groups. Mesothelin and antimesothelin were correlated in ovarian cancer (correlation coefficient corrected for age = 0.49, P = 0.02). However, not all individuals with elevated mesothelin had antimesothelin antibodies.

Figure 3.

Comparison of mesothelin antibody and circulating antigen in ovarian cancer (•) and benign tumor (▵) groups. Mesothelin and antimesothelin were correlated in ovarian cancer (correlation coefficient corrected for age = 0.49, P = 0.02). However, not all individuals with elevated mesothelin had antimesothelin antibodies.

Close modal

Although the age range of the study groups and normal controls overlapped, the mean ages were not the same. Mesothelin antibody (correlation coefficient = −0.17, P = 0.02) was negatively correlated, while mesothelin antigen (correlation coefficient = 0.26, P = 0.001) was positively correlated with age. When corrected for age, the relationships between antimesothelin and circulating mesothelin remained unchanged (correlation coefficient = 0.1, P = 0.2) including the correlation within the ovarian cancer group (correlation coefficient corrected for age = 0.49, P = 0.018). Thus, circulating antigen was detected more often in ovarian cancer and antimesothelin was detected more often in patients with evidence of ovarian failure.

This study extends previous studies which showed that women with infertility and women with ovarian cancer have antibodies to ovarian antigens and shows for the first time that women with specific categories of infertility have antibodies to a well-known ovarian cancer biomarker. Originally, we identified antiovarian (microsomal) antibodies indicative of ovarian autoimmunity in women with POF, unexplained infertility or suboptimal response to exogenous hormone (21–27, 29, 53–55). Furthermore, in women with low ovarian responsiveness, antiovarian antibodies occur predominantly in younger women differentiating them from older women transitioning into a normal, age-related menopause (53). Since women with infertility have increased risk for ovarian cancer (4, 6, 8) and since antitumor antibodies are common in cancer (30, 35, 38, 56–58), we also evaluated the possibility that ovarian cancer patients have antiovarian antibodies. We found that women with ovarian cancer, but not endometrial cancer or benign tumors have antiovarian antibodies (36).

In the current study, we show that there is an autoantibody response to mesothelin, a well-defined biomarker of ovarian carcinoma (51, 59, 60), in women with POF, ovulatory dysfunction or unexplained infertility. This is consistent with the presence of an autoimmune disease of the ovary (22, 24–26, 61) and with the established risk of ovarian cancer associated with infertility (4, 6, 8). This raises the possibility that an autoimmune process precedes or contributes to development and progression of malignant ovarian tumors. Shared autoantibody repertoires in autoimmunity and cancer have been reported (32). Although there is a relationship between autoimmunity and immunity to tumors, the nature of the relationship remains to be determined (39). Nonetheless, the results of this study suggest that early autoantibody responses could identify which women with infertility have a high risk for ovarian cancer.

Interestingly, although endometriosis is associated with a high risk for ovarian cancer (62, 63), women with endometriosis did not have antimesothelin antibodies. Although there was a difference in the initial, least stringent analysis of optical density values, there was no difference in the number of positive sera compared with normal sera. The absence of mesothelin antibodies in patients with endometriosis was also noted in a small group in a previous study (48). A history of endometriosis is more often associated with endometrioid and clear cell ovarian carcinoma (62) while serous histology tumors are thought to arise from epithelial cells shed onto the ovary from the fallopian tubes (64, 65). Similarly, the risk for subtypes of ovarian tumors may vary; among women with infertility in a population study of infertility in Denmark (66), the major contribution to ovarian cancer risk was associated with serous tumors (SIR = 2.1) followed by endometrioid tumors (SIR = 1.35) with mucinous tumors contributing little to the risk for ovarian cancer (SIR = 0.81). This is also consistent with differences in expression profiles among different tumor subtypes (67, 68). Thus, it is possible that tumors arising in women with endometriosis do not involve autoantibody reactions or do not involve the same autoantibody reactions as other infertility categories.

Evidence for different autoantibodies associated with different histologic subtypes (30, 69–71) is congruent with the concept that mesothelin antibodies may be associated with some types of infertility and not others. We found the majority of mesothelin antibody positive sera in ovarian cancer were associated with serous rather than endometrioid tumor histology, consistent with the more frequent expression of mesothelin in serous ovarian tumors (72). Hence it is possible that antibodies to mesothelin reflect a risk for serous ovarian tumors.

In addition, we found a higher titer of antimesothelin antibodies in infertility than in ovarian cancer. This suggests they may have a higher affinity, or that in ovarian cancer in the presence of excess antigen, antibody-antigen complexes form reducing detection of antimesothelin. Antigen-antibody complexes have been reported for CA125 (73) and MUC1 (74). It is also possible that excess antigen or some other mechanism suppresses the antibody response in ovarian cancer. Although mesothelin antibodies were reported previously (47, 48) our group of ovarian carcinoma patients may have been too small to reach statistical significance compared with normal sera. However, the group used in this study had a lower proportion of serous ovarian cancer than in prior studies (47, 48) and this may have contributed to the lower proportion of mesothelin antibodies. Although none of the normal or benign comparison groups had significant levels of antimesothelin, there were occasional women with mesothelin antibodies. This is not surprising since more than 11% of the population may have infertility (9) and thus it is possible that a subset of women in the normal group may have infertility associated with autoantibodies. It is also possible that among older women in this group a subset have undetected early stage tumors. Thus, the magnitude of differences between women with identified infertility and those in the normal group may be slightly underestimated. However, further study is needed to determine the significance of mesothelin antibodies in apparently healthy women.

We also tested sera for circulating mesothelin and found, as expected, that most patients with ovarian carcinoma had circulating antigen (45). However, with the exception of unexplained infertility, circulating antigen was not significantly higher in the infertility groups compared with normal women. Since there are no standard clinical cutoff values for circulating mesothelin, it is not clear if the slightly elevated levels of circulating mesothelin in unexplained infertility are clinically relevant.

The precise function of antibodies in tumor progression remains to be determined and may involve multiple roles (75). Antibodies to cell surface antigens can promote the growth of tumor cells both in vitro and in vivo (76–78). Antibodies to tumor antigens can also inhibit tumor growth, for example, via antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, complement dependent cytotoxicity and by interfering with growth controlling signals. Also, a weak tumor-directed immune response can stimulate tumor growth (41, 42) and it has been hypothesized that autoimmunity increases the risk for cancer (32, 35, 39, 40). However, in contrast to the extensive evidence for antitumor antibodies, MUC1 antibodies, another antigen which is overexpressed in ovarian cancer (79–81) are detected more frequently in women with a lower risk of ovarian cancer (80, 81) than in patients with cancer (82, 83). Clearly, antitumor antibodies may provide specific biomarkers of cancer risk and of early stage cancer, but much remains to be determined regarding their functional role in cancer.

In summary, the results of this study showed for the first time that circulating mesothelin antibodies occur in women with increased epidemiologic risk for ovarian cancer. One may speculate that antibodies may arise in response to very early neoplastic processes in infertile women that may or may not progress to malignant tumors depending on additional triggering events. On the other hand antibodies may bind to normal cells in the ovary and cause ovarian dysfunction which leads to infertility and in a subpopulation of infertile women, to the development of ovarian cancer. On the other hand, antibodies may simply reflect an inflammatory response to mesothelin.

Further studies are needed to establish the relative risk for ovarian cancer in infertile women who have mesothelin antibody. Useful information on the relationship of autoantibodies to tumor progression may also be derived from an appropriate animal model. For example, we showed that egg-laying hens have a high frequency of ovarian carcinoma (84) associated with ovarian autoantibodies similar to humans (85). Ovarian tumors in hens express a homologue of human mesothelin (86). Use of this model may facilitate clarification of the relationship between antimesothelin antibodies and ovarian cancer formation.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The authors thank Dr. N. Kiviat for her generous support and Jee Hang Tse for excellent technical help.

Studies were supported by NIH R01AI055060-01 (J. Luborsky), Ovarian Cancer SPORE (P50CA83636) Development Award (J. Luborsky), NIH R01CA134487 (J. Luborsky, subcontract), Rush University Segal award (J. Luborsky), NIH 1RO1CA1344867 (I. Hellstrom) and a grant from Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. (I. Hellstrom).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Tortolero-Luna
G
,
Mitchell
MF
. 
The epidemiology of ovarian cancer
.
J Cell Biochem Suppl
1995
;
23
:
200
7
.
2.
Venn
A
,
Healy
D
,
McLachlan
R
. 
Cancer risks associated with the diagnosis of infertility
.
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol
2003
;
17
:
343
67
.
3.
Runnebaum
IB
,
Stickeler
E
. 
Epidemiological and molecular aspects of ovarian cancer risk
.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
2001
;
127
:
73
9
.
4.
Ness
RB
,
Cramer
DW
,
Goodman
MT
,
Kjaer
SK
,
Mallin
K
,
Mosgaard
BJ
, et al
Infertility, fertility drugs, and ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of case-control studies
.
Am J Epidemiol
2002
;
155
:
217
24
.
5.
Rossing
MA
,
Tang
MT
,
Flagg
EW
,
Weiss
LK
,
Wicklund
KG
. 
A case-control study of ovarian cancer in relation to infertility and the use of ovulation-inducing drugs
.
Am J Epidemiol
2004
;
160
:
1070
8
.
6.
Kallen
B
,
Finnstrom
O
,
Lindam
A
,
Nilsson
E
,
Nygren
KG
,
Otterblad
Olausson P
. 
Malignancies among women who gave birth after in vitro fertilization
.
Hum Reprod
2011
;
26
:
253
8
.
7.
Brinton
LA
,
Westhoff
CL
,
Scoccia
B
,
Lamb
EJ
,
Althuis
MD
,
Mabie
JE
, et al
Causes of infertility as predictors of subsequent cancer risk
.
Epidemiology
2005
;
16
:
500
7
.
8.
Brinton
LA
,
Lamb
EJ
,
Moghissi
KS
,
Scoccia
B
,
Althuis
MD
,
Mabie
JE
, et al
Ovarian cancer risk associated with varying causes of infertility
.
Fertil Steril
2004
;
82
:
405
14
.
9.
Kamel
RM
. 
Management of the infertile couple: an evidence-based protocol
.
Reprod Biol Endocrinol
2010
;
8
:
21
.
10.
Sunderam
S
,
Chang
J
,
Flowers
L
,
Kulkarni
A
,
Sentelle
G
,
Jeng
G
, et al
Assisted reproductive technology surveillance–United States, 2006
.
MMWR Surveill Summ
2009
;
58
:
1
25
.
11.
Molinaro
TA
,
Shaunik
A
,
Lin
K
,
Sammel
MD
,
Barnhart
KT
. 
A strict infertility diagnosis has poor agreement with the clinical diagnosis entered into the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry
.
Fertil Steril
2009
;
92
:
2088
90
.
12.
Luborsky
J
,
Sowers
M
,
Gold
E
,
Meyers
P
,
Eckhold
H
,
Santoro
N
. 
Premature menopause (POF) in a multi-ethnic population study of the menopause transition
.
4th International Symposium on Women's Health and Menopause
,
pp. abstract
.
Washington, DC;
2001
.
13.
Goswami
D
,
Conway
GS
. 
Premature ovarian failure
.
Hum Reprod Update
2005
;
11
:
391
410
.
14.
Santoro
N
. 
Research on the mechanisms of premature ovarian failure
.
J Soc Gynecol Investig
2001
;
8
:
S10
2
.
15.
Cramer
DW
. 
Epidemiologic aspects of early menopause and ovarian cancer
.
Ann N Y Acad Sci
1990
;
592
:
363
75
.
16.
Cramer
DW
,
Hutchison
GB
,
Welch
WR
,
Scully
RE
,
Ryan
KJ
. 
Determinants of ovarian cancer risk. I. Reproductive experiences and family history
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1983
;
71
:
711
6
.
17.
Cramer
DW
,
Welch
WR
,
Cassells
S
,
Scully
RE
. 
Mumps, menarche, menopause, and ovarian cancer
.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
1983
;
147
:
1
6
.
18.
Smith
ER
,
Xu
XX
. 
Ovarian ageing, follicle depletion, and cancer: a hypothesis for the aetiology of epithelial ovarian cancer involving follicle depletion
.
Lancet Oncol
2008
;
9
:
1108
11
.
19.
Vanderhyden
BC
. 
Loss of ovarian function and the risk of ovarian cancer
.
Cell Tissue Res
2005
;
322
:
117
24
.
20.
Venn
A
,
Watson
L
,
Bruinsma
F
,
Giles
G
,
Healy
D
. 
Risk of cancer after use of fertility drugs with in vitro fertilisation
.
Lancet
1999
;
354
:
1586
90
.
21.
Luborsky
J
,
Llanes
B
,
Davies
S
,
Binor
Z
,
Radwanska
E
,
Pong
R
. 
Ovarian autoimmunity: greater frequency of autoantibodies in premature menopause and unexplained infertility than in the general population
.
Clin Immunol
1999
;
90
:
368
74
.
22.
Luborsky
J
. 
Ovarian autoimmune disease and ovarian autoantibodies
.
J Womens Health Gend Based Med
2002
;
11
:
585
99
.
23.
Luborsky
JL
,
Visintin
I
,
Boyers
S
,
Asare
T
,
Caldwell
B
,
DeCherney
A
. 
Ovarian antibodies detected by immobilized antigen immunoassay in patients with premature ovarian failure
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
1990
;
70
:
69
75
.
24.
Pires
ES
,
Khole
VV
. 
A block in the road to fertility: autoantibodies to heat-shock protein 90-beta in human ovarian autoimmunity
.
Fertil Steril
2009
;
92
:1395–409.
25.
Sundblad
V
,
Bussmann
L
,
Chiauzzi
VA
,
Pancholi
V
,
Charreau
EH
. 
Alpha-enolase: a novel autoantigen in patients with premature ovarian failure
.
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)
2006
;
65
:
745
51
.
26.
Forges
T
,
Monnier-Barbarino
P
,
Faure
GC
,
Bene
MC
. 
Autoimmunity and antigenic targets in ovarian pathology
.
Hum Reprod Update
2004
;
10
:
163
75
.
27.
Meyer
WR
,
Lavy
G
,
DeCherney
AH
,
Visintin
I
,
Economy
K
,
Luborsky
JL
. 
Evidence of gonadal and gonadotropin antibodies in women with a suboptimal ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropin
.
Obstet Gynecol
1990
;
75
:
795
9
.
28.
Creus
M
,
Penarrubia
J
,
Fabregues
F
,
Vidal
E
,
Carmona
F
,
Casamitjana
R
, et al
Day 3 serum inhibin B and FSH and age as predictors of assisted reproduction treatment outcome
.
Hum Reprod
2000
;
15
:
2341
6
.
29.
Luborsky
J
,
Roussev
R
,
Coulam
C
. 
Ovarian antibodies, FSH and inhibin are independent markers associated with unexplained infertility
.
Human Reprod
2000
;
15
:
1046
51
.
30.
Gnjatic
S
,
Ritter
E
,
Buchler
MW
,
Giese
NA
,
Brors
B
,
Frei
C
, et al
Seromic profiling of ovarian and pancreatic cancer
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2010
;
107
:
5088
93
.
31.
Reuschenbach
M
,
von Knebel Doeberitz
M
,
Wentzensen
N
. 
A systematic review of humoral immune responses against tumor antigens
.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
2009
;
58
:
1535
44
.
32.
Bei
R
,
Masuelli
L
,
Palumbo
C
,
Modesti
M
,
Modesti
A
. 
A common repertoire of autoantibodies is shared by cancer and autoimmune disease patients: inflammation in their induction and impact on tumor growth
.
Cancer Lett
2009
;
281
:
8
23
.
33.
Stockert
E
,
Jager
E
,
Chen
YT
,
Scanlan
MJ
,
Gout
I
,
Karbach
J
, et al
A survey of the humoral immune response of cancer patients to a panel of human tumor antigens
.
J Exp Med
1998
;
187
:
1349
54
.
34.
Nesterova
M
,
Johnson
N
,
Cheadle
C
,
Cho-Chung
YS
. 
Autoantibody biomarker opens a new gateway for cancer diagnosis
.
Biochim Biophys Acta
2006
;
1762
:
398
403
.
35.
Tan
EM
,
Zhang
J
. 
Autoantibodies to tumor-associated antigens: reporters from the immune system
.
Immunol Rev
2008
;
222
:
328
40
.
36.
Barua
A
,
Bradaric
MJ
,
Kebede
T
,
Espinosa
S
,
Edassery
SL
,
Bitterman
P
, et al
Anti-ovarian and anti-tumor antibodies in women with ovarian cancer
.
Am J Reprod Immunol
2007
;
57
:
243
9
.
37.
Luborsky
JL
,
Barua
A
,
Shatavi
SV
,
Kebede
T
,
Abramowicz
J
,
Rotmensch
J
. 
Anti-tumor antibodies in ovarian cancer
.
Am J Reprod Immunol
2005
;
54
:
55
62
.
38.
Erkanli
A
,
Taylor
DD
,
Dean
D
,
Eksir
F
,
Egger
D
,
Geyer
J
, et al
Application of Bayesian modeling of autologous antibody responses against ovarian tumor-associated antigens to cancer detection
.
Cancer Res
2006
;
66
:
1792
8
.
39.
Ramirez-Montagut
T
,
Turk
MJ
,
Wolchok
JD
,
Guevara-Patino
JA
,
Houghton
AN
. 
Immunity to melanoma: unraveling the relation of tumor immunity and autoimmunity
.
Oncogene
2003
;
22
:
3180
7
.
40.
Uchi
H
,
Stan
R
,
Turk
MJ
,
Engelhorn
ME
,
Rizzuto
GA
,
Goldberg
SM
, et al
Unraveling the complex relationship between cancer immunity and autoimmunity: lessons from melanoma and vitiligo
.
Adv Immunol
2006
;
90
:
215
41
.
41.
Prehn
RT
,
Prehn
LM
. 
The flip side of immune surveillance: immune dependency
.
Immunol Rev
2008
;
222
:
341
56
.
42.
Prehn
RT
. 
An immune reaction may be necessary for cancer development
.
Theor Biol Med Model
2006
;
3
:
6
.
43.
Rosen
DG
,
Wang
L
,
Atkinson
JN
,
Yu
Y
,
Lu
KH
,
Diamandis
EP
, et al
Potential markers that complement expression of CA125 in epithelial ovarian cancer
.
Gynecol Oncol
2005
;
99
:
267
77
.
44.
Scholler
N
,
Fu
N
,
Yang
Y
,
Ye
Z
,
Goodman
GE
,
Hellstrom
KE
, et al
Soluble member(s) of the mesothelin/megakaryocyte potentiating factor family are detectable in sera from patients with ovarian carcinoma
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1999
;
96
:
11531
6
.
45.
McIntosh
MW
,
Drescher
C
,
Karlan
B
,
Scholler
N
,
Urban
N
,
Hellstrom
KE
, et al
Combining CA 125 and SMR serum markers for diagnosis and early detection of ovarian carcinoma
.
Gynecol Oncol
2004
;
95
:
9
15
.
46.
Palmer
C
,
Duan
X
,
Hawley
S
,
Scholler
N
,
Thorpe
JD
,
Sahota
RA
, et al
Systematic evaluation of candidate blood markers for detecting ovarian cancer
.
PLoS One
2008
;
3
:
e2633
.
47.
Ho
M
,
Hassan
R
,
Zhang
J
,
Wang
QC
,
Onda
M
,
Bera
T
, et al
Humoral immune response to mesothelin in mesothelioma and ovarian cancer patients
.
Clin Cancer Res
2005
;
11
:
3814
20
.
48.
Hellstrom
I
,
Friedman
E
,
Verch
T
,
Yang
Y
,
Korach
J
,
Jaffar
J
, et al
Anti-mesothelin antibodies and circulating mesothelin relate to the clinical state in ovarian cancer patients
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2008
;
17
:
1520
6
.
49.
Broekmans
FJ
,
Fauser
BC
. 
Diagnostic criteria for polycystic ovarian syndrome
.
Endocrine
2006
;
30
:
3
11
.
50.
Ng
SK
,
Wang
DI
,
Yap
MG
. 
Application of destabilizing sequences on selection marker for improved recombinant protein productivity in CHO-DG44
.
Metab Eng
2007
;
9
:
304
16
.
51.
Hellstrom
I
,
Raycraft
J
,
Kanan
S
,
Sardesai
NY
,
Verch
T
,
Yang
Y
, et al
Mesothelin variant 1 is released from tumor cells as a diagnostic marker
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
1014
20
.
52.
Johnston
FM
,
Tan
MC
,
Tan
BR
 Jr.
,
Porembka
MR
,
Brunt
EM
,
Linehan
DC
, et al
Circulating mesothelin protein and cellular antimesothelin immunity in patients with pancreatic cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2009
;
15
:
6511
8
.
53.
Luborsky
JL
,
Thiruppathi
P
,
Rivnay
B
,
Roussev
R
,
Coulam
C
,
Radwanska
E
. 
Evidence for different aetiologies of low estradiol response to FSH: age-related accelerated luteinization of follicles or presence of ovarian autoantibodies
.
Hum Reprod
2002
;
17
:
2641
9
.
54.
Shatavi
SV
,
Llanes
B
,
Luborsky
JL
. 
Association of unexplained infertility with gonadotropin and ovarian antibodies
.
Am J Reprod Immunol
2006
;
56
:
286
91
.
55.
Edassery
SL
,
Shatavi
SV
,
Kunkel
JP
,
Hauer
C
,
Brucker
C
,
Penumatsa
K
, et al
Autoantigens in ovarian autoimmunity associated with unexplained infertility and premature ovarian failure
.
Fertil Steril
2010
;
94
:
2636
41
.
56.
Taylor
DD
,
Gercel-Taylor
C
,
Parker
LP
. 
Patient-derived tumor-reactive antibodies as diagnostic markers for ovarian cancer
.
Gynecol Oncol
2009
;
115
:
112
20
.
57.
Jager
E
,
Stockert
E
,
Zidianakis
Z
,
Chen
YT
,
Karbach
J
,
Jager
D
, et al
Humoral immune responses of cancer patients against “Cancer-Testis” antigen NY-ESO-1: correlation with clinical events
.
Int J Cancer
1999
;
84
:
506
10
.
58.
Gnjatic
S
,
Wheeler
C
,
Ebner
M
,
Ritter
E
,
Murray
A
,
Altorki
NK
, et al
Seromic analysis of antibody responses in non-small cell lung cancer patients and healthy donors using conformational protein arrays
.
J Immunol Methods
2009
;
341
:
50
8
.
59.
Hassan
R
,
Remaley
AT
,
Sampson
ML
,
Zhang
J
,
Cox
DD
,
Pingpank
J
, et al
Detection and quantitation of serum mesothelin, a tumor marker for patients with mesothelioma and ovarian cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2006
;
12
:
447
53
.
60.
Hellstrom
I
,
Hellstrom
KE
. 
SMRP and HE4 as biomarkers for ovarian carcinoma when used alone and in combination with CA125 and/or each other
.
Adv Exp Med Biol
2008
;
622
:
15
21
.
61.
Monnier-Barbarino
P
,
Forges
T
,
Faure
GC
,
Bene
MC
. 
[Ovarian autoimmunity and ovarian pathologies: antigenic targets and diagnostic significance]
.
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris)
2005
;
34
:
649
57
.
62.
Nezhat
F
,
Datta
MS
,
Hanson
V
,
Pejovic
T
,
Nezhat
C
. 
The relationship of endometriosis and ovarian malignancy: a review
.
Fertil Steril
2008
;
90
:
1559
70
.
63.
Mandai
M
,
Yamaguchi
K
,
Matsumura
N
,
Baba
T
,
Konishi
I
. 
Ovarian cancer in endometriosis: molecular biology, pathology, and clinical management
.
Int J Clin Oncol
2009
;
14
:
383
91
.
64.
Salvador
S
,
Gilks
B
,
Kobel
M
,
Huntsman
D
,
Rosen
B
,
Miller
D
. 
The fallopian tube: primary site of most pelvic high-grade serous carcinomas
.
Int J Gynecol Cancer
2009
;
19
:
58
64
.
65.
Piek
JM
,
van Diest
PJ
,
Verheijen
RH
. 
Ovarian carcinogenesis: an alternative hypothesis
.
Adv Exp Med Biol
2008
;
622
:
79
87
.
66.
Jensen
A
,
Sharif
H
,
Frederiksen
K
,
Kjaer
SK
. 
Use of fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer: Danish Population Based Cohort Study
.
BMJ
2009
;
338
:
b249
.
67.
Kobel
M
,
Kalloger
SE
,
Boyd
N
,
McKinney
S
,
Mehl
E
,
Palmer
C
, et al
Ovarian carcinoma subtypes are different diseases: implications for biomarker studies
.
PLoS Med
2008
;
5
:
e232
.
68.
Marquez
RT
,
Baggerly
KA
,
Patterson
AP
,
Liu
J
,
Broaddus
R
,
Frumovitz
M
, et al
Patterns of gene expression in different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer correlate with those in normal fallopian tube, endometrium, and colon
.
Clin Cancer Res
2005
;
11
:
6116
26
.
69.
Draghici
S
,
Chatterjee
M
,
Tainsky
MA
. 
Epitomics: serum screening for the early detection of cancer on microarrays using complex panels of tumor antigens
.
Expert Rev Mol Diagn
2005
;
5
:
735
43
.
70.
Gunawardana
CG
,
Memari
N
,
Diamandis
EP
. 
Identifying novel autoantibody signatures in ovarian cancer using high-density protein microarrays
.
Clin Biochem
2009
;
42
:
426
9
.
71.
Tang
L
,
Yang
J
,
Ng
SK
,
Rodriguez
N
,
Choi
PW
,
Vitonis
A
, et al
Autoantibody profiling to identify biomarkers of key pathogenic pathways in mucinous ovarian cancer
.
Eur J Cancer
2010
;
46
:
170
9
.
72.
Frierson
HF
 Jr.
,
Moskaluk
CA
,
Powell
SM
,
Zhang
H
,
Cerilli
LA
,
Stoler
MH
, et al
Large-scale molecular and tissue microarray analysis of mesothelin expression in common human carcinomas
.
Hum Pathol
2003
;
34
:
605
9
.
73.
Cramer
DW
,
O'Rourke
DJ
,
Vitonis
AF
,
Matulonis
UA
,
Dijohnson
DA
,
Sluss
PM
, et al
CA125 immune complexes in ovarian cancer patients with low CA125 concentrations
.
Clin Chem
2010
;
56
:
1889
92
.
74.
Croce
MV
,
Isla-Larrain
MT
,
Price
MR
,
Segal-Eiras
A
. 
Detection of circulating mammary mucin (Muc1) and MUC1 immune complexes (Muc1-CIC) in healthy women
.
Int J Biol Markers
2001
;
16
:
112
20
.
75.
de Visser
KE
. 
Spontaneous immune responses to sporadic tumors: tumor-promoting, tumor-protective or both?
Cancer Immunol Immunother
2008
;
57
:
1531
9
.
76.
de Visser
KE
,
Korets
LV
,
Coussens
LM
. 
De novo carcinogenesis promoted by chronic inflammation is B lymphocyte dependent
.
Cancer Cell
2005
;
7
:
411
23
.
77.
de Visser
KE
,
Eichten
A
,
Coussens
LM
. 
Paradoxical roles of the immune system during cancer development
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2006
;
6
:
24
37
.
78.
Shearer
WT
,
Philpott
GW
,
Parker
CW
. 
Stimulation of cells by antibody
.
Science
1973
;
182
:
1357
9
.
79.
Vlad
AM
,
Diaconu
I
,
Gantt
KR
. 
MUC1 in endometriosis and ovarian cancer
.
Immunol Res
2006
;
36
:
229
36
.
80.
Cramer
DW
,
Titus-Ernstoff
L
,
McKolanis
JR
,
Welch
WR
,
Vitonis
AF
,
Berkowitz
RS
, et al
Conditions associated with antibodies against the tumor-associated antigen MUC1 and their relationship to risk for ovarian cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2005
;
14
:
1125
31
.
81.
Terry
KL
,
Titus-Ernstoff
L
,
McKolanis
JR
,
Welch
WR
,
Finn
OJ
,
Cramer
DW
. 
Incessant ovulation, mucin 1 immunity, and risk for ovarian cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
30
5
.
82.
Hermsen
BB
,
Verheijen
RH
,
Menko
FH
,
Gille
JJ
,
van Uffelen
K
,
Blankenstein
MA
, et al
Humoral immune responses to MUC1 in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation
.
Eur J Cancer
2007
;
43
:
1556
63
.
83.
Rabassa
ME
,
Croce
MV
,
Pereyra
A
,
Segal-Eiras
A
. 
MUC1 expression and anti-MUC1 serum immune response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC): a multivariate analysis
.
BMC Cancer
2006
;
6
:
253
.
84.
Fredrickson
TN
. 
Ovarian tumors of the hen
.
Environ Health Perspect
1987
;
73
:
35
51
.
85.
Barua
A
,
Bradaric
MJ
,
Kebede
T
,
Espionosa
S
,
Edassery
SL
,
Bitterman
P
, et al
Anti-tumor and anti-ovarian autoantibodies in women with ovarian cancer
.
Am J Reprod Immunol
2007
;
57
:
243
9
.
86.
Yu
Y
,
Edassery
SL
,
Barua
A
,
Abramowicz
JS
,
Bahr
JM
,
Hellstrom
I
, et al
The hen model of human ovarian cancer develops anti-mesothelin autoantibodies in response to mesothelin expressing tumors
.
J Ovarian Research
2011
;
4
:
12 (July 29 2011)
.