Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods. OBJECTIVES: To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

Diagnostic Models Combining Clinical Information, Ultrasound and Biochemical Markers for Ovarian Cancer: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a diagnostic challenge, with the majority diagnosed at late stages. Existing systematic reviews of diagnostic models either use inappropriate meta-analytic methods or do not conduct statistical comparisons of models or stratify test performance by menopausal status. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and SCI Science Citation Index, trials registers, conference proceedings from 1991 to June 2019. Cochrane collaboration review methods included QUADAS-2 quality assessment and meta-analysis using hierarchical modelling. RMI, ROMA or ADNEX at any test positivity threshold were investigated. Histology or clinical follow-up was the reference standard. We excluded screening studies, studies restricted to pregnancy, recurrent or metastatic OC. 2 × 2 diagnostic tables were extracted separately for pre- and post-menopausal women. Results: We included 58 studies (30,121 patients, 9061 cases of ovarian cancer). Prevalence of OC ranged from 16 to 55% in studies. For premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (+/−2) and ADNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at 200 (p < 0.0001) 77.8 (72.5, 82.4), 94.9 (92.5, 96.6), and 57.1% (50.6 to 63.4) but lower specificity (p < 0.002), 92.5 (90.0, 94.4), 84.3 (81.3, 86.8), and 78.2 (75.8, 80.4). For postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (+/−2) and AdNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at a threshold of 200 (p < 0.001) 90.4 (87.4, 92.7), 97.6 (96.2, 98.5), and 78.7 (74.3, 82.5), specificity of ROMA was comparable, whilst ADneX was lower, 85.5 (81.3, 88.9), 81.3 (76.9, 85.0) (p = 0.155), compared to RMI 55.2 (51.2, 59.1) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In pre-menopausal women, ROMA and ADNEX offer significantly higher sensitivity but significantly decreased specificity. In post-menopausal women, ROMA demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI I, ADNEX has the highest sensitivity of all models, but with significantly reduced specificity. RMI I has poor sensitivity compared to ROMA or ADNEX. Choice between ROMA and ADNEX as a replacement test will depend on cost effectiveness and resource implications.

Human papillomavirus type distribution in vulval intraepithelial neoplasia determined using PapilloCheck DNA Microarray.

Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia is a precursor of vulval carcinoma, and is frequently associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Estimates of HPV prevalence in vulval intraepithelial neoplasia vary widely in the UK. The objective of this study was to assess HPV infection in a sample of women with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia, confirmed histologically, and determine the proportion of disease associated with HPV types targeted by prophylactic HPV vaccines. HPV infection was assessed in biopsies from 59 patients using the Greiner Bio-One PapilloCheck® DNA chip assay. Valid results were obtained for 54 cases. HPV infection was present in 43 of the 54 cases (79.6%: 95% CI 67.1-88.2%). The most common HPV types were HPV 16 (33/54: 61.1%), HPV 33 (8/54: 14.8%), HPV 6 (5/54: 9.3%), and HPV 42 (3/54: 5.6%). The mean age of HPV positive women was significantly less than the mean age of HPV negative women. This is the largest UK series of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia in which HPV type has been investigated, and 34/54 (63.0%, 95% CI: 49.6-78.6%) cases were associated with HPV 16/18, which are targeted by current prophylactic HPV vaccines.

Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS): protocol for a prospective longitudinal test accuracy study to validate new risk scores in women with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian cancer (OC) is associated with non-specific symptoms such as bloating, making accurate diagnosis challenging: only 1 in 3 women with OC presents through primary care referral. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommends sequential testing with CA125 and routine ultrasound in primary care. However, these diagnostic tests have limited sensitivity or specificity. Improving accurate triage in women with vague symptoms is likely to improve mortality by streamlining referral and care pathways. The Refining Ovarian Cancer Test Accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS; HTA 13/13/01) project will derive and validate new tests/risk prediction models that estimate the probability of having OC in women with symptoms. This protocol refers to the prospective study only (phase III). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ROCkeTS comprises four parallel phases. The full ROCkeTS protocol can be found at http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ROCKETS. Phase III is a prospective test accuracy study. The study will recruit 2450 patients from 15 UK sites. Recruited patients complete symptom and anxiety questionnaires, donate a serum sample and undergo ultrasound scored as per International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) criteria. Recruitment is at rapid access clinics, emergency departments and elective clinics. Models to be evaluated include those based on ultrasound derived by the IOTA group and novel models derived from analysis of existing data sets. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, c-statistic (area under receiver operating curve), positive predictive value and negative predictive value of diagnostic tests are evaluated and a calibration plot for models will be presented. ROCkeTS has received ethical approval from the NHS West Midlands REC (14/WM/1241) and is registered on the controlled trials website (ISRCTN17160843) and the National Institute of Health Research Cancer and Reproductive Health portfolios.

Outcomes following implementation of symptom triggered diagnostic testing for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: UK is the first country to implement symptom triggered testing for suspected ovarian cancer (OC) following guidance from National Institute of Clinical Excellence in 2011. We evaluated its impact on cancer outcomes and implications on clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cohort study and we analysed data for all new urgent referrals for suspected OC from two large teaching hospitals using a prospectively collected electronic referral database, supplemented with clinical data from electronic records. We evaluated outcomes prior to (2011) and after (2013) implementation of guidance to evaluate stage shift, referrals workload and surgical procedures generated. RESULTS: Secondary care received 2185 new referrals from primary care for women with suspected gynaecological cancer in post guideline cohort. Of these, 217 women were referred for suspected OC. 90% of primary care referrals were not compliant with guidance. Following implementation of guidance, more women with OC were diagnosed through urgent referral (rapid access clinics): Almost double, 21 of the total 67 (31.34%) OCs in 2013 (post guidance) in comparison to only 11 of 69 OCs (15.94%) were diagnosed in 2011 (pre guidance) through urgent referrals, p=0.03. The predictive value of detecting cancer through rapid access clinics increased, from 4.5% to 9.6%, p=0.04; however, no stage shift was noted. Over 25% of patients underwent surgeries for non-malignant conditions in the post-guideline cohort. No increase was seen in workload of cancer clinics. CONCLUSION: Implementation of Symptom-triggered testing is challenging in clinical practice. Such testing results in more patients with OC accessing expedited care pathways leading to streamlined routes of diagnosis and care. However, current implementation does not lead to stage shift in diagnosis and may not achieve significant mortality benefit.