Tumour stage, treatment, and survival of women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer in UKCTOCS: an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy. METHODS: UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50-74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. FINDINGS: 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04-13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4-13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6-26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5-17·4]). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, The Eve Appeal.

Ovarian cancer symptoms in pre-clinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer - An exploratory analysis nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

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.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial.

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.

Improved early detection of ovarian cancer using longitudinal multimarker models.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer has a poor survival rate due to late diagnosis and improved methods are needed for its early detection. Our primary objective was to identify and incorporate additional biomarkers into longitudinal models to improve on the performance of CA125 as a first-line screening test for ovarian cancer. METHODS: This case-control study nested within UKCTOCS used 490 serial serum samples from 49 women later diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 31 control women who were cancer-free. Proteomics-based biomarker discovery was carried out using pooled samples and selected candidates, including those from the literature, assayed in all serial samples. Multimarker longitudinal models were derived and tested against CA125 for early detection of ovarian cancer. RESULTS: The best performing models, incorporating CA125, HE4, CHI3L1, PEBP4 and/or AGR2, provided 85.7% sensitivity at 95.4% specificity up to 1 year before diagnosis, significantly improving on CA125 alone. For Type II cases (mostly high-grade serous), models achieved 95.5% sensitivity at 95.4% specificity. Predictive values were elevated earlier than CA125, showing the potential of models to improve lead time. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified candidate biomarkers and tested longitudinal multimarker models that significantly improve on CA125 for early detection of ovarian cancer. These models now warrant independent validation.

Ovarian cancer symptoms, routes to diagnosis and survival - Population cohort study in the 'no screen' arm of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

OBJECTIVE: There are widespread efforts to increase symptom awareness of 'pelvic/abdominal pain, increased abdominal size/bloating, difficulty eating/feeling full and urinary frequency/urgency' in an attempt to diagnose ovarian cancer earlier. Long-term survival of women with these symptoms adjusted for known prognostic factors is yet to be determined. This study explored the association of symptoms, routes and interval to diagnosis and long-term survival in a population-based cohort of postmenopausal women diagnosed with invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (iEOC) in the 'no screen' (control) UKCTOCS arm. METHODS: Of 101,299 women in the control arm, 574 were confirmed on outcome review to have iEOC between randomisation (2001-2005) and 31 December 2014. Data was extracted from medical notes and electronic records. A multivariable model was fitted for individual symptoms, time interval from symptom onset to diagnosis, route to diagnosis, speciality, morphological Type, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis (period effect), stage, primary treatment, and residual disease. RESULTS: Women presenting with symptoms listed in the NICE guidelines (HR1.48, 95%CI1.16-1.89, p = 0.001) or the modified Goff Index (HR1·68, 95%CI1·32-2.13, p < 0.0001) had significantly worse survival than those who did not. Each additional presenting symptom decreased survival (HR1·20, 95%CI1·12-1·28, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, in addition to advanced stage, increasing residual disease and inadequate primary treatment, abdominal pain and loss of appetite/feeling full were significantly associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The ovarian cancer symptom indices identify postmenopausal women with a poorer prognosis. This study however cannot exclude the possibility of better outcomes in those who are aware and act on their symptoms.

Diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer using a combined protein biomarker panel.

BACKGROUND: An early detection tool for EOC was constructed from analysis of biomarker expression data from serum collected during the UKCTOCS. METHODS: This study included 49 EOC cases (19 Type I and 30 Type II) and 31 controls, representing 482 serial samples spanning seven years pre-diagnosis. A logit model was trained by analysis of dysregulation of expression data of four putative biomarkers, (CA125, phosphatidylcholine-sterol acyltransferase, vitamin K-dependent protein Z and C-reactive protein); by scoring the specificity associated with dysregulation from the baseline expression for each individual. RESULTS: The model is discriminatory, passes k-fold and leave-one-out cross-validations and was further validated in a Type I EOC set. Samples were analysed as a simulated annual screening programme, the algorithm diagnosed cases with >30% PPV 1-2 years pre-diagnosis. For Type II cases (~80% were HGS) the algorithm classified 64% at 1 year and 28% at 2 years tDx as severe. CONCLUSIONS: The panel has the potential to diagnose EOC one-two years earlier than current diagnosis. This analysis provides a tangible worked example demonstrating the potential for development as a screening tool and scrutiny of its properties. Limits on interpretation imposed by the number of samples available are discussed.

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for ovarian cancer risk prediction in a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified >30 common SNPs associated with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We evaluated the combined effects of EOC susceptibility SNPs on predicting EOC risk in an independent prospective cohort study. METHODS: We genotyped ovarian cancer susceptibility single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a nested case-control study (750 cases and 1428 controls) from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening trial. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were constructed and their associations with EOC risk were evaluated using logistic regression. The absolute risk of developing ovarian cancer by PRS percentiles was calculated. RESULTS: The association between serous PRS and serous EOC (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.58, p=1.3×10-11) was stronger than the association between overall PRS and overall EOC risk (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.45, p=5.4×10-10). Women in the top fifth percentile of the PRS had a 3.4-fold increased EOC risk compared with women in the bottom 5% of the PRS, with the absolute EOC risk by age 80 being 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, for the two groups of women in the population. CONCLUSION: PRSs can be used to predict future risk of developing ovarian cancer for women in the general population. Incorporation of PRSs into risk prediction models for EOC could inform clinical decision-making and health management.

A combined biomarker panel shows improved sensitivity for the early detection of ovarian cancer allowing the identification of the most aggressive type II tumours.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for biomarkers for the early detection of ovarian cancer (OC). The purpose of this study was to assess whether changes in serum levels of lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), glucose-regulated protein, 78 kDa (GRP78), calprotectin and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 2 (IGFBP2) are observed before clinical presentation and to assess the performance of these markers alone and in combination with CA125 for early detection. METHODS: This nested case-control study used samples from the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening trial. The sample set consisted of 482 serum samples from 49 OC subjects and 31 controls, with serial samples spanning up to 7 years pre-diagnosis. The set was divided into the following: (I) a discovery set, which included all women with only two samples from each woman, the first at<14 months and the second at >32 months to diagnosis; and (ii) a corroboration set, which included all the serial samples from the same women spanning the 7-year period. Lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase, SHBG, GRP78, calprotectin and IGFBP2 were measured using ELISA. The performance of the markers to detect cancers pre-diagnosis was assessed. RESULTS: A combined threshold model IGFBP2 >78.5 ng ml-1 : LCAT <8.831 µg ml-1 : CA125 >35 U ml-1 outperformed CA125 alone for the earlier detection of OC. The threshold model was able to identify the most aggressive Type II cancers. In addition, it increased the lead time by 5-6 months and identified 26% of Type I subjects and 13% of Type II subjects that were not identified by CA125 alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combined biomarker panels (IGFBP2, LCAT and CA125) outperformed CA125 up to 3 years pre-diagnosis, identifying cancers missed by CA125, providing increased diagnostic lead times for Type I and Type II OC. The model identified more aggressive Type II cancers, with women crossing the threshold dying earlier, indicating that these markers can improve on the sensitivity of CA125 alone for the early detection of OC.

The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

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.

Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial.

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.

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. METHODS: This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 .

Protein Z: A putative novel biomarker for early detection of ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest mortality of all gynaecological cancers. Early diagnosis offers an approach to achieving better outcomes. We conducted a blinded-evaluation of prospectively collected preclinical serum from participants in the multimodal group of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening. Using isobaric tags (iTRAQ) we identified 90 proteins differentially expressed between OC cases and controls. A second targeted mass spectrometry analysis of twenty of these candidates identified Protein Z as a potential early detection biomarker for OC. This was further validated by ELISA analysis in 482 serial serum samples, from 80 individuals, 49 OC cases and 31 controls, spanning up to 7 years prior to diagnosis. Protein Z was significantly down-regulated up to 2 years pre-diagnosis (p = 0.000000411) in 8 of 19 Type I patients whilst in 5 Type II individuals, it was significantly up-regulated up to 4 years before diagnosis (p = 0.01). ROC curve analysis for CA-125 and CA-125 combined with Protein Z showed a statistically significant (p = 0.00033) increase in the AUC from 77 to 81% for Type I and a statistically significant (p= 0.00003) increase in the AUC from 76 to 82% for Type II. Protein Z is a novel independent early detection biomarker for Type I and Type II ovarian cancer; which can discriminate between both types. Protein Z also adds to CA-125 and potentially the Risk of Ovarian Cancer algorithm in the detection of both subtypes.

Socioeconomic indicators of health inequalities and female mortality: a nested cohort study within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

BACKGROUND: Evidence is mounting that area-level socioeconomic indicators are important tools for predicting health outcomes. However, few studies have examined these alongside individual-level education. This nested cohort study within the control arm of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) assesses the association of mutually adjusted individual (education) and area-level (Index of Multiple Deprivation-IMD 2007) socioeconomic status indicators and all-cause female mortality. METHODS: Participants resident in England who had completed both baseline (Wave 1) and follow up (Wave 2) questionnaires were included. Follow-up was through the Health and Social Care Information Centre with deaths censored on 31st December 2012. IMD, education and a range of covariates were explored. Cox regression models adjusted for all covariates were used. Sensitivity analysis using imputation was performed (1) including those with missing data and (2) on the entire cohort who had completed the baseline questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 54,539 women resident in England who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 questionnaires, 4,510 had missing data. The remaining 50,029 women were included in the primary analysis. Area-level IMD was positively associated with all-cause mortality for the most deprived group compared to the least deprived (HR=1.42, CI=1.14-1.78) after adjusting for all potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results with stronger associations in the entire cohort (HR=1.90, CI=1.68-2.16). The less educated an individual, the higher the mortality risk (test for trend p=<0.001). However, the crude effect on mortality of having no formal education compared to college/university education disappeared when adjusted for IMD rank (HR=1.08, CI=0.93-1.26). CONCLUSION: Women living in more deprived areas continue to have higher mortality even in this less deprived cohort and after adjustment for a range of potential confounders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN22488978.

Mortality impact, risks, and benefits of general population screening for ovarian cancer: the UKCTOCS randomised controlled trial.

Background: Ovarian and tubal cancers are lethal gynaecological cancers, with over 50% of the patients diagnosed at advanced stage. Trial design: Randomised controlled trial involving 27 primary care trusts adjacent to 13 trial centres based at NHS Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Methods: Postmenopausal average-risk women, aged 50-74, with intact ovaries and no previous ovarian or current non-ovarian cancer. Interventions: One of two annual screening strategies: (1) multimodal screening (MMS) using a longitudinal CA125 algorithm with repeat CA125 testing and transvaginal scan (TVS) as second line test (2) ultrasound screening (USS) using TVS alone with repeat scan to confirm any abnormality. The control (C) group had no screening. Follow-up was through linkage to national registries, postal follow-up questionnaires and direct communication with trial centres and participants. Objective: To assess comprehensively risks and benefits of ovarian cancer screening in the general population. Outcome: Primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer as assigned by an independent outcomes review committee. Secondary outcomes included incidence and stage at diagnosis of ovarian and tubal cancer, compliance, performance characteristics, harms and cost-effectiveness of the two screening strategies and a bioresource for future research. Randomisation: The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to MMS, USS and C groups in a 1:1:2 ratio. Blinding: Investigators and participants were unblinded and outcomes review committee was masked to randomisation group. Analyses: Primary analyses were by intention to screen, comparing separately MMS and USS with C using the Versatile test. Results: 1,243,282 women were invited and 205,090 attended for recruitment between April 2001 and September 2005. Randomised: 202,638 women: 50,640 MMS, 50,639 USS and 101,359 C group. Numbers analysed for primary outcome: 202,562 (>99.9%): 50,625 (>99.9%) MMS, 50,623 (>99.9%) USS, and 101,314 (>99.9%) C group. Outcome: Women in MMS and USS groups underwent 345,570 and 327,775 annual screens between randomisation and 31 December 2011. At median follow-up of 16.3 (IQR 15.1-17.3) years, 2055 women developed ovarian or tubal cancer: 522 (1.0% of 50,625) MMS, 517 (1.0% of 50,623) USS, and 1016 (1.0% of 101314) in C group. Compared to the C group, in the MMS group, the incidence of Stage I/II disease was 39.2% (95% CI 16.1 to 66.9) higher and stage III/IV 10.2% (95% CI -21.3 to 2.4) lower. There was no difference in stage in the USS group. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0.6%) MMS, 291 (0.6%) USS, and 619 (0.6%) C group. There was no significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths in either MMS (p = 0.580) or USS (p = 0.360) groups compared to the C group. Overall compliance with annual screening episode was 80.8% (345,570/420,047) in the MMS and 78.0% (327,775/420,047) in the USS group. For ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the last test in a screening episode, in the MMS group, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 83.8% (95% CI 78.7 to 88.1), 99.8% (95% CI 99.8 to 99.9), and 28.8% (95% CI 25.5 to 32.2) and in the USS group, 72.2% (95% CI 65.9 to 78.0), 99.5% (95% CI 99.5 to 99.5), and 9.1% (95% CI 7.8 to 10.5) respectively. The final within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was not undertaken as there was no mortality reduction. A bioresource (UKCTOCS Longitudinal Women's Cohort) of longitudinal outcome data and over 0.5 million serum samples including serial annual samples in women in the MMS group was established and to date has been used in many new studies, mainly focused on early detection of cancer. Harms: Both screening tests (venepuncture and TVS) were associated with minor complications with low (8.6/100,000 screens MMS; 18.6/100,000 screens USS) complication rates. Screening itself did not cause anxiety unless more intense repeat testing was required following abnormal screens. In the MMS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 2.3 (489 false positives; 212 cancers) women in the MMS group had unnecessary false-positive (benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa) surgery. Overall, 14 (489/345,572 annual screens) underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. In the USS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 10 (1630 false positives; 164 cancers) underwent unnecessary false-positive surgery. Overall, 50 (1630/327,775 annual screens) women underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. Conclusions: Population screening for ovarian and tubal cancer for average-risk women using these strategies should not be undertaken. Decreased incidence of Stage III/IV cancers during multimodal screening did not translate to mortality reduction. Researchers should be cautious about using early stage as a surrogate outcome in screening trials. Meanwhile the bioresource provides a unique opportunity to evaluate early cancer detection tests. Funding: Long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015-2020) - National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-2014) - Medical Research Council (MRC) (G9901012/G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MR_UU_12023).

Text: Most women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed after the disease has spread widely (advanced stage ­ III and IV) and more than half die within 5 years. We wanted to find out if testing women without symptoms could pick up ovarian cancer at an earlier stage before it has spread beyond the ovaries and tubes and reduce deaths. We also wanted to assess the risks and benefits of such screening. Text: We invited over 1.2 million women living near 13 centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of them, 202,638 joined the trial. All women were between 50 and 74 and were no longer having periods. They had never been diagnosed with ovarian cancer or were not having treatment for any other cancer. They did not have many relatives with ovarian or breast cancer. The volunteers were placed into one of three groups at random. List: 1. The blood test group contained 50,640 women who had yearly CA125 blood tests. If these showed a moderate or high chance of ovarian cancer, they had repeat CA125 tests and a scan. List: 2. The scan group contained 50,639 women who had yearly internal scans of their ovaries and tubes which were repeated if they showed an abnormality. List: 3. The no-screening group contained 101,359 women. Text: Those in the blood and scan groups had screening every year until December 2011. We sent all women health questionnaires and also, with their permission, received information about them from the national cancer and death registries till mid-2020. Text: Women in the screened groups had an average of eight years of screening. We followed them for approximately 16 years after they had joined the trial. During this period, 2055 women were diagnosed with ovarian and tubal cancer. It was about 1 in 100 women (1%) in all three groups. List: • 522 of 50,625 in the blood group. List: • 517 of 50,623 in the scan group. List: • 1016 of 101,314 in the no-screening group. Text: More women were diagnosed with early-stage cancer and fewer were diagnosed with advanced cancer in the blood group compared to the no-screening group. There was no difference in the number diagnosed with early or advanced disease between the scan and no-screening group. Despite this difference, the number of women in each group who died from ovarian and tubal cancer was similar in all three groups: 296 of 50,625 (0.6%) in the blood group, 291 of 50,623 (0.6%) in the scan group and 619 of 101,314 (0.6%) in the no-screening group. Other results showed. List: • Overall, 81% women in the blood group and 78% in the scan group attended all of their annual screening appointments. List: • In the blood group, screening detected 84% of ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the test and correctly classified as normal 99.8% of women who did not have ovarian and tubal cancer. List: • In the scan group, screening detected 72% of ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the last test and correctly classified 99.5% of those who did not have ovarian and tubal cancer. List: • Both screening tests were associated with minor complications. List: • While screening did not increase anxiety, there was slightly increased worry in women who were asked to return for more intense repeat testing. List: • Both screening methods picked up changes that were in fact not ovarian cancer. This meant that women had unnecessary surgery together with the worry and risk of complications that go with it. List: ◦ In the blood group 14 women had unnecessary surgery for every 10,000 women screened annually. This means that for each woman found to have ovarian cancer, an additional 2 women had unnecessary surgery. List: ◦ In the scan group 50 women had unnecessary surgery for every 10,000 women screened annually. This means that for each woman found to have ovarian cancer, an additional 10 women had unnecessary surgery. List: • A biobank with all the donated data and over 0.5 million serum samples, including yearly samples from women in the blood group, was built and continues to be used in many new studies, mainly focused on early detection of cancer. Text: Screening using the CA125 blood test or transvaginal ultrasound scan to test for ovarian cancer did not save lives. Additionally, it was associated with some harm. Therefore, an ovarian cancer screening programme for most women cannot be currently recommended. The trial also showed for the first time that ovarian cancer can be detected earlier through screening. However, for screening to save lives, the test needs to pick up many more women earlier in the course of the disease so that available treatments are effective. The biobank provides an opportunity for scientists to see if newer tests for cancer can detect the disease earlier.

Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials.

Abstract: Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer. Future work: There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology. Trial registration: ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Randomised controlled trials help us decide whether new health-care approaches are better than those in current use. To successfully complete these on time and within budget, there is a constant need to review and revise the procedures used for delivering various aspects such as invitation, enrolment, follow-up of participants, delivery of the new test, data collection, and analysis. We report on the processes used in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest such trials. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening enrolled over 202,000 women (2001­5), delivered over 670,000 yearly screens (2001­11) and followed all participants until 2020. Key to our successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in day-to-day running of the trial, a pre-emptive approach to issues, a willingness to innovate, and the use of technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to always contact either their local or the central team for clarifications and rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared participant contact details (with consent) with both teams. We built a comprehensive electronic system to manage all aspects of the trial. This included online forms that the teams completed in real time (resulting in an almost paperless trial) and systems to check and manage trial processes and track blood samples. We automated key steps such as checking whether participants were eligible, assigning correct action based on results of screening tests, scheduling appointments and printing letters. As a result, all participants were treated as set out in the trial plan. Our engagement with participants ensured that they continued participating and we had a low rate of complaints. We faced issues with regard to our initial trial design and the way we planned to analyse the data. We feel that our solutions are highly relevant, especially as there is a renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

The UKCTOCS experience--reasons for hope?

There has been concern about current ovarian cancer screening strategies after the publication showing a lack of benefit from screening in the ovarian part of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The ongoing United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening involves 202,638 low-risk postmenopausal women. The performance characteristics on prevalence screen in sensitivity, specificity, and stage distribution have been encouraging. Screening differs from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial in the use of algorithms to interpret CA125 and ultrasound imaging and well-defined, centrally coordinated management of screen-detected abnormalities with protocols for intervention based on screening findings. There is a possibility that these essential differences may be sufficient to alter the natural history of ovarian cancer and ultimately lead to demonstration of a mortality benefit from screening when the trial reports in 2014/2015.

Unselected Population Genetic Testing for Personalised Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction: A Qualitative Study Using Semi-Structured Interviews.

Unselected population-based personalised ovarian cancer (OC) risk assessments combining genetic, epidemiological and hormonal data have not previously been undertaken. We aimed to understand the attitudes, experiences and impact on the emotional well-being of women from the general population who underwent unselected population genetic testing (PGT) for personalised OC risk prediction and who received low-risk (<5% lifetime risk) results. This qualitative study was set within recruitment to a pilot PGT study using an OC risk tool and telephone helpline. OC-unaffected women ≥ 18 years and with no prior OC gene testing were ascertained through primary care in London. In-depth, semi-structured and 1:1 interviews were conducted until informational saturation was reached following nine interviews. Six interconnected themes emerged: health beliefs; decision making; factors influencing acceptability; effect on well-being; results communication; satisfaction. Satisfaction with testing was high and none expressed regret. All felt the telephone helpline was helpful and should remain optional. Delivery of low-risk results reduced anxiety. However, care must be taken to emphasise that low risk does not equal no risk. The main facilitators were ease of testing, learning about children's risk and a desire to prevent disease. Barriers included change in family dynamics, insurance, stigmatisation and personality traits associated with stress/worry. PGT for personalised OC risk prediction in women in the general population had high acceptability/satisfaction and reduced anxiety in low-risk individuals. Facilitators/barriers observed were similar to those reported with genetic testing from high-risk cancer clinics and unselected PGT in the Jewish population.

Diagnostic pathways for breast cancer in 10 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions: an international comparative cohort study based on questionnaire and registry data.

OBJECTIVES: A growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. SETTING: Primary care in 10 jurisdictions. PARTICIPANT: Data were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals. RESULTS: Overall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3-29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0-20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8-29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15-39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4-78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario). CONCLUSIONS: Large international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.

Performance Characteristics of the Ultrasound Strategy during Incidence Screening in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

Randomised controlled trials of ovarian cancer (OC) screening have not yet demonstrated an impact on disease mortality. Meanwhile, the screening data from clinical trials represents a rich resource to understand the performance of modalities used. We report here on incidence screening in the ultrasound arm of UKCTOCS. 44,799 of the 50,639 women who were randomised to annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound attended annual incidence screening between 28 April 2002 and 31 December 2011. Transvaginal ultrasound was used both as the first and the second line test. Participants were followed up through electronic health record linkage and postal questionnaires. Out of 280,534 annual incidence screens, 960 women underwent screen-positive surgery. 113 had ovarian/tubal cancer (80 invasive epithelial). Of the screen-detected invasive epithelial cancers, 37.5% (95% CI: 26.9-49.0) were Stage I/II. An additional 52 (50 invasive epithelial) were diagnosed within one year of their last screen. Of the 50 interval epithelial cancers, 6.0% (95% CI: 1.3-16.5) were Stage I/II. For detection of all ovarian/tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of screen, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were 68.5% (95% CI: 60.8-75.5), 99.7% (95% CI: 99.7-99.7), and 11.8% (95% CI: 9.8-14) respectively. When the analysis was restricted to invasive epithelial cancers, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 61.5% (95% CI: 52.6-69.9); 99.7% (95% CI: 99.7-99.7) and 8.3% (95% CI: 6.7-10.3), with 12 surgeries per screen positive. The low sensitivity coupled with the advanced stage of interval cancers suggests that ultrasound scanning as the first line test might not be suitable for population screening for ovarian cancer. Trial registration: ISRCTN22488978. Registered on 6 April 2000.