Search

Objective: UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers., Methods: In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50-74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032., Results: 1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms., Conclusions: Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest UM had stock ownership awarded by University College London (UCL) between until October 2021 in Abcodia, which holds the licence for ROCA. She and MP have received grants and AGM, MB, JK and AR have been funded by grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and The Eve Appeal. UM has also received grants from UK Innovate and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia and salary support from UCL Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. UM, AGM and SA report funded research collaborations with industry - iLOF (intelligent Lab on Fiber), RNA Guardian, Micronoma, MercyBio Analytics and academics -Cambridge University, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Imperial College London, University of Innsbruck and Dana Farber USA. UM holds patent number EP10178345.4 for Breast Cancer Diagnostics. AGM is a member of ACED Gynaecological Cancer Working Group and is ACED Co-Director Research Domain Trials. MP was an Associate Member of the EME funding committee while the project was active. SJS reports that Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has co-licensed software for ROCA to Abcodia, now owned by GenInCode, with MGH licence revenue to MGH and research laboratories per MGH institutional policies. SJS receives grant support from National Cancer Institute (USA) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (UK). He is paid for service on the clinical advisory board for Guardant Health. He serves on the Scientific Advisory Board for LUNGevity. He has stock options from SISCAPA Assay Technologies for participation on its Scientific Advisory Board. IJJ reports grants from Eve Appeal Charity, MRC, Cancer Research UK, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. He co-invented the ROCA in 1995. Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London granted a licence for the ROCA to Abcodia in 2014. IJJ is non-executive director, shareholder, and consultant to Abcodia and has rights to royalties from sales of the ROCA. He founded (1985), was a trustee of (2012–14), and is now an Emeritus trustee (2015–present) of The Eve Appeal, one of the funding agencies for UKCTOCS. LF reports MRC funding for the psychosocial arm of the UKCTOCS study 2001–13, paid to University of Sussex. NS received honoraria from Astra-Zeneca-MPC and GlaxoSmithKline for participation in advisory boards. AMcG was a member of NIHR HTA and EME Editoral Board (2012 to 2022). RM reports funding from The Eve Appeal, Rosetrees Trust, Barts Charity, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Ovacure, British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS), GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Honoraria from Astrazeneca and EGL. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ovarian cancer continues to have a poor prognosis with the majority of women diagnosed with advanced disease. Therefore, we undertook the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) to determine if population screening can reduce deaths due to the disease. We report on ovarian cancer mortality after long-term follow-up in UKCTOCS., Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years were recruited from 13 centres in National Health Service trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were bilateral oophorectomy, previous ovarian or active non-ovarian malignancy, or increased familial ovarian cancer risk. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS), annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Follow-up was through national registries. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer (WHO 2014 criteria) by June 30, 2020. Analyses were by intention to screen, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening using the versatile test. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type, whereas the outcomes review committee were masked to randomisation group. This study is registered with ISRCTN, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032., Findings: Between April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005, of 1 243 282 women invited, 202 638 were recruited and randomly assigned, and 202 562 were included in the analysis: 50 625 (25·0%) in the MMS group, 50 623 (25·0%) in the USS group, and 101 314 (50·0%) in the no screening group. At a median follow-up of 16·3 years (IQR 15·1-17·3), 2055 women were diagnosed with tubal or ovarian cancer: 522 (1·0%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 517 (1·0%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 1016 (1·0%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. Compared with no screening, there was a 47·2% (95% CI 19·7 to 81·1) increase in stage I and 24·5% (-41·8 to -2·0) decrease in stage IV disease incidence in the MMS group. Overall the incidence of stage I or II disease was 39·2% (95% CI 16·1 to 66·9) higher in the MMS group than in the no screening group, whereas the incidence of stage III or IV disease was 10·2% (-21·3 to 2·4) lower. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0·6%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 291 (0·6%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 619 (0·6%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. No significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths was observed in the MMS (p=0·58) or USS (p=0·36) groups compared with the no screening group., Interpretation: The reduction in stage III or IV disease incidence in the MMS group was not sufficient to translate into lives saved, illustrating the importance of specifying cancer mortality as the primary outcome in screening trials. Given that screening did not significantly reduce ovarian and tubal cancer deaths, general population screening cannot be recommended., Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests UM has stock ownership awarded by University College London (UCL) in Abcodia, which holds the licence for ROCA. She has received grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and The Eve Appeal. She holds patent number EP10178345.4 for Breast Cancer Diagnostics. MP has received grants and AG-M, MB, AR, CK, GC, and SKM have been funded by grants from MRC, Cancer Research UK, NIHR, and The Eve Appeal. RM has received grants from The Eve Appeal, Rosetrees Charity, and Barts Charity, and personal fees from AstraZeneca. SJS holds the (expired) patent for ROCA, patented and owned by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London, licenced to Abcodia. He reports stock options from SISCAPA Assay Technologies, and personal fees from Abcodia, Guardant Health, and Freenome, outside the submitted work. IJJ reports grants from Eve Appeal Charity, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. He co-invented the ROCA in 1995, it was patented by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London and is owned by these universities. Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London granted a licence to ROCA to Abcodia in 2014. IJJ is non-executive director, shareholder, and consultant to Abcodia and has rights to royalties from sales of the ROCA. He founded (1985), was a trustee of (2012–14), and is now an Emeritus trustee (2015–present) of The Eve Appeal, one of the funding agencies for UKCTOCS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: To assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of an NHS ovarian cancer screening (OCS) programme using data from UKCTOCS and extrapolate results based on average life expectancy., Methods: Within-trial economic evaluation of no screening (C) vs either (1) an annual OCS programme using transvaginal ultrasound (USS) or (2) an annual ovarian cancer multimodal screening programme with serum CA125 interpreted using a risk algorithm (ROCA) and transvaginal ultrasound as a second-line test (MMS), plus comparison of lifetime extrapolation of the no screening arm and the MMS programme using both a predictive and a Markov model., Results: Using a CA125-ROCA cost of £20, the within-trial results show USS to be strictly dominated by MMS, with the MMS vs C comparison returning an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £91 452 per life year gained (LYG). If the CA125-ROCA unit cost is reduced to £15, the ICER becomes £77 818 per LYG. Predictive extrapolation over the expected lifetime of the UKCTOCS women returns an ICER of £30 033 per LYG, while Markov modelling produces an ICER of £46 922 per QALY., Conclusion: Analysis suggests that, after accounting for the lead time required to establish full mortality benefits, a national OCS programme based on the MMS strategy quickly approaches the current NICE thresholds for cost-effectiveness when extrapolated out to lifetime as compared with the within-trial ICER estimates. Whether MMS could be recommended on economic grounds would depend on the confirmation and size of the mortality benefit at the end of an ongoing follow-up of the UKCTOCS cohort.

Background: Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the effect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality., Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer-generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032., Findings: Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202,638 women: 50,640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50,639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101,359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202,546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50,624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50,623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101,299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345,570 MMS and 327,775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0-12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0-14 of 15% (95% CI -3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (-7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar flexible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality effect was made up of 8% (-20 to 31) in years 0-7 and 23% (1-46) in years 7-14, and in the USS group, of 2% (-27 to 26) in years 0-7 and 21% (-2 to 42) in years 7-14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly different death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (-2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (-27 to 43) in years 0-7 and 28% (-3 to 49) in years 7-14 in favour of MMS., Interpretation: Although the mortality reduction was not significant in the primary analysis, we noted a significant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7-14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening., Funding: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, The Eve Appeal., (Copyright © 2016 Jacobs Menon et al. Open Access article published under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cancer screening strategies have commonly adopted single-biomarker thresholds to identify abnormality. We investigated the impact of serial biomarker change interpreted through a risk algorithm on cancer detection rates., Patients and Methods: In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, 46,237 women, age 50 years or older underwent incidence screening by using the multimodal strategy (MMS) in which annual serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) was interpreted with the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA). Women were triaged by the ROCA: normal risk, returned to annual screening; intermediate risk, repeat CA-125; and elevated risk, repeat CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound. Women with persistently increased risk were clinically evaluated. All participants were followed through national cancer and/or death registries. Performance characteristics of a single-threshold rule and the ROCA were compared by using receiver operating characteristic curves., Results: After 296,911 women-years of annual incidence screening, 640 women underwent surgery. Of those, 133 had primary invasive epithelial ovarian or tubal cancers (iEOCs). In all, 22 interval iEOCs occurred within 1 year of screening, of which one was detected by ROCA but was managed conservatively after clinical assessment. The sensitivity and specificity of MMS for detection of iEOCs were 85.8% (95% CI, 79.3% to 90.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.8% to 99.8%), respectively, with 4.8 surgeries per iEOC. ROCA alone detected 87.1% (135 of 155) of the iEOCs. Using fixed CA-125 cutoffs at the last annual screen of more than 35, more than 30, and more than 22 U/mL would have identified 41.3% (64 of 155), 48.4% (75 of 155), and 66.5% (103 of 155), respectively. The area under the curve for ROCA (0.915) was significantly (P = .0027) higher than that for a single-threshold rule (0.869)., Conclusion: Screening by using ROCA doubled the number of screen-detected iEOCs compared with a fixed cutoff. In the context of cancer screening, reliance on predefined single-threshold rules may result in biomarkers of value being discarded., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Objective: To estimate the risk of primary epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and slow growing borderline or Type I and aggressive Type II EOC in postmenopausal women with adnexal abnormalities on ultrasound., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in the ultrasound group of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening of postmenopausal women with ultrasound-detected abnormal adnexal (unilocular, multilocular, unilocular solid and multilocular solid, solid) morphology on their first scan. Women were followed up through the national cancer registries and by postal questionnaires. Absolute risks of EOC and borderline, Type I and Type II EOC within 3 years of initial scan were calculated., Results: Of 48 053 women who underwent ultrasound examination and had complete scan data, 4367 (9.1% (95% CI, 8.8-9.3%)) had abnormal adnexal morphology. Median follow-up was 7.09 (25(th) -75(th) centiles, 6.03-7.92) years. Forty-seven (32 borderline or Type I, 15 Type II) were diagnosed with EOC. The overall absolute risk of EOC associated with abnormal adnexal morphology was 1.08% (95% CI, 0.79-1.43%); for borderline and Type I it was 0.73% (95% CI, 0.5-1.03%); and for Type II it was 0.34% (95% CI, 0.33-0.79%). In the subgroup (n = 741) with solid elements (unilocular solid, multilocular solid and solid) overall absolute risk was 4.45% (95% CI, 3.08-6.20%), for borderline and Type I it was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.9-4.6%) and for Type II it was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6-2.4%). 11 982 women had both ovaries visualized and normal annual scans throughout the 3-year follow-up period. In this group, no borderline or Type I and eight Type II cancers were diagnosed., Conclusion: Asymptomatic postmenopausal women with ultrasound-detected adnexal abnormalities with solid elements have a 1 in 22 risk for EOC. Despite the higher prevalence of Type II EOC, the risk of borderline or Type I cancer in women with ultrasound abnormalities seems to be higher than does the risk of Type II cancer. This has important immediate implications for patients with incidental adnexal findings as well as for any future ultrasound-based screening., (Copyright © 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The increase in the worldwide incidence of endometrial cancer relates to rising obesity, falling fertility, and the ageing of the population. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) is a possible screening test, but there have been no large-scale studies. We report the performance of TVS screening in a large cohort., Methods: We did a nested case-control study of postmenopausal women who underwent TVS in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) following recruitment between April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005. Endometrial thickness and endometrial abnormalities were recorded, and follow-up, through national registries and a postal questionnaire, documented the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Our primary outcome measure was endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Performance characteristics of endometrial thickness and abnormalities for detection of endometrial cancer within 1 year of TVS were calculated. Epidemiological variables were used to develop a logistic regression model and assess a screening strategy for women at higher risk. Our study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032, and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN22488978., Findings: 48,230 women underwent TVS in the UKCTOCS prevalence screen. 9078 women were ineligible because they had undergone a hysterectomy and 2271 because their endometrial thickness had not been recorded; however, 157 of these women had an endometrial abnormality on TVS and were included in the analysis. Median follow-up was 5·11 years (IQR 4·05-5·95). 136 women with endometrial cancer or AEH within 1 year of TVS were included in our primary analysis. The optimum endometrial thickness cutoff for endometrial cancer or AEH was 5·15 mm, with sensitivity of 80·5% (95% CI 72·7-86·8) and specificity of 86·2% (85·8-86·6). Sensitivity and specificity at a 5 mm or greater cutoff were 80·5% (72·7-86·8) and 85·7% (85·4-86·2); for women with a 5 mm or greater cutoff plus endometrial abnormalities, the sensitivity and specificity were 85·3% (78·2-90·8) and 80·4% (80·0-80·8), respectively. For a cutoff of 10 mm or greater, sensitivity and specificity were 54·1% (45·3-62·8) and 97·2% (97·0-97·4). When our analysis was restricted to the 96 women with endometrial cancer or AEH who reported no symptoms of postmenopausal bleeding at the UKCTOCS scan before diagnosis and had an endometrial thickness measurement available, a cutoff of 5 mm achieved a sensitivity of 77·1% (67·8-84·3) and specificity of 85·8% (85·7-85·9). The logistic regression model identified 25% of the population as at high risk and 39·5% of endometrial cancer or AEH cases were identified within this high risk group. In this high-risk population, a cutoff at 6·75 mm achieved sensitivity of 84·3% (71·4-93·0) and specificity of 89·9% (89·3-90·5)., Interpretation: Our findings show that TVS screening for endometrial cancer has good sensitivity in postmenopausal women. The burden of diagnostic procedures and false-positive results can be reduced by limiting screening to a higher-risk group. The role of population screening for endometrial cancer remains uncertain, but our findings are of immediate value in the management of increased endometrial thickness in postmenopausal women undergoing pelvic scans for reasons other than vaginal bleeding., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)