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 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.

Testing breast cancer serum biomarkers for early detection and prognosis in pre-diagnosis samples.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although mammography screening is available, there is an ongoing interest in improved early detection and prognosis. Herein, we have analysed a combination of serological biomarkers in a case-control cohort of sera taken before diagnosis. METHODS: This nested case-control study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) used serum samples from 239 women who subsequently developed breast cancer and 239 matched cancer-free controls. Sera were screened by ELISA for 9 candidate markers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine associations with clinico-pathological features and between case controls in different time groups before diagnosis. RESULTS: Significant associations with clinico-pathological features related to prognosis were found for several candidates (CA15-3, HSP90A and PAI-1). However, there were no consistent differences between cases and controls for any candidate in the lead up to diagnosis. Whilst combination models outperformed single markers, there was no increase in performance towards diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study using unique pre-diagnosis samples shows that CA15-3, HSP90A and PAI-1 have potential as early prognostic markers and warrant further investigation. However, none of the candidates or combinations would be useful for screening.

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.

Ovarian cancer familial relative risks by tumour subtypes and by known ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility variants.

BACKGROUND: Family history is one of the most important risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Little is known, however, on how EOC familial relative risks (FRRs) vary by factors such as tumour subtype or the combined effects of common EOC susceptibility alleles. In addition, no data currently exist on the FRRs associated with EOC after exclusion of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS: EOC FRRs were computed from observed EOCs in relatives of 1548 patients with EOC recruited between 1999 and 2010 from a population-based cohort study with known BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status and tumour subtype, compared with the number expected in the general population. RESULTS: The EOC FRR to all first-degree relatives was estimated to be 2.96 (95% CI 2.35 to 3.72) but there was no evidence of difference in the FRRs for mothers, sisters and daughters. There was significant evidence that the FRR for relatives of patients with EOC diagnosed under age 50 years is higher than that for older patients (4.72 (95% CI 3.21 to 6.95) and 2.53 (95% CI 1.91 to 3.35), p-diff=0.0052) and a suggestion that the FRR in relatives of patients with serous disease is higher than that for non-serous tumours (3.64 (95% CI 2.72 to 4.87) and 2.25 (95% CI 1.56 to 3.26), p-diff=0.0023). The FRR to relatives of cases without a deleterious mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was estimated to be over twice that of the general population (2.24 (95% CI 1.71 to 2.94)). BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were estimated to account for about 24% of the EOC FRR to first-degree relatives. FRRs were found to increase with increasing polygenic risk score of the index patient, although the trend was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates could be useful in the counselling of relatives of patients with ovarian cancer.

The dynamics and prognostic potential of DNA methylation changes at stem cell gene loci in women's cancer.

Aberrant DNA methylation is an important cancer hallmark, yet the dynamics of DNA methylation changes in human carcinogenesis remain largely unexplored. Moreover, the role of DNA methylation for prediction of clinical outcome is still uncertain and confined to specific cancers. Here we perform the most comprehensive study of DNA methylation changes throughout human carcinogenesis, analysing 27,578 CpGs in each of 1,475 samples, ranging from normal cells in advance of non-invasive neoplastic transformation to non-invasive and invasive cancers and metastatic tissue. We demonstrate that hypermethylation at stem cell PolyComb Group Target genes (PCGTs) occurs in cytologically normal cells three years in advance of the first morphological neoplastic changes, while hypomethylation occurs preferentially at CpGs which are heavily Methylated in Embryonic Stem Cells (MESCs) and increases significantly with cancer invasion in both the epithelial and stromal tumour compartments. In contrast to PCGT hypermethylation, MESC hypomethylation progresses significantly from primary to metastatic cancer and defines a poor prognostic signature in four different gynaecological cancers. Finally, we associate expression of TET enzymes, which are involved in active DNA demethylation, to MESC hypomethylation in cancer. These findings have major implications for cancer and embryonic stem cell biology and establish the importance of systemic DNA hypomethylation for predicting prognosis in a wide range of different cancers.

Performance of ultrasound as a second line test to serum CA125 in ovarian cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of ultrasonography in a multimodal ovarian cancer screening strategy. DESIGN: Prospective ovarian cancer screening trial between December 1986 and June 1993. SETTING: General practice, occupational health departments and an ovarian cancer screening clinic at a London teaching hospital. POPULATION: Postmenopausal women, ≥ 45 years with a raised CA125. METHODS: Volunteers with a CA125 ≥ 30 U/mL underwent a pelvic ultrasound. Scans were classified as normal, abnormal (ovarian volume ≥ 8.8 mL) or equivocal (normal volume with abnormal morphology). Abnormal ovarian morphology was subclassified as simple cyst (single, thin walled cyst with no septa or papillary projections) or complex (all other abnormalities). Volunteers with abnormal scans were referred for a gynaecological opinion. Follow up was via the cancer registry and postal questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of different ultrasound criteria for detection of index cancer (e.g. primary invasive epithelial carcinoma of the ovary and fallopian tube). RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty-one women underwent 1219 scans and 20 index cancers occurred during a median follow up of 6.8 years. The sensitivity for detection of ovarian cancer of different ultrasound criteria was 100% for abnormal morphology, 89.5% for abnormal volume and 84% for complex morphology. The highest specificity (97%) and positive predictive value (37.2%) was achieved using complex morphology. CONCLUSION: A variety of ultrasound criteria can achieve high sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value for index cancers in postmenopausal women with an elevated CA125. Use of ovarian morphology to interpret ultrasound may increase sensitivity and use of complex ovarian morphology may increase the positive predictive value.

The sex hormone system in carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Penetrance for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations is disproportionately high. Sex hormone dysregulation and altered end-organ hormone sensitivity might explain this organ-specific penetrance. We sought to identify differences in hormone regulation between carriers of BRCA1/2 and women who are negative for BRCA1/2 mutations. METHODS: We assessed endometrial thickness for each menstrual cycle day (as an index of hormone regulation) in 393 scans from 228 women in the UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study (UK FOCSS) known to carry either mutation and 1573 scans from 754 women known to be negative for the mutations. To quantify differences in endometrial thickness we focused on days 10-14 and days 21-26, and calculated the area under the curve. We then compared serum oestradiol and progesterone titres during these days of the menstrual cycle in the same groups. Follicular and luteal oestradiol and progesterone serum titres were grouped into quartiles and odds ratios were calculated with logistic regression. FINDINGS: Follicular phase endometrial thickness of carriers of the mutations adjusted for age and day of the menstrual cycle was higher (odds ratio [OR] 1·11, 95% CI 1·03-1·20; p=0·0063) and luteal phase endometrial thickness lower (0·90, 0·83-0·98; p=0·027) than for women negative for the mutations. Median luteal phase titres of progesterone were 121% higher (p=0·00037) in carriers than in women negative for the mutations, and for oestradiol were 33% higher (p=0·007)-ie, 59% of carriers had concentrations of serum progesterone that would have been in the top quartile of concentrations in the control group (OR 8·0, 95% CI 2·1-52·57; p=0·008). INTERPRETATION: Carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations are exposed to higher titres of oestradiol and progesterone-known risk-factors for breast cancer. Higher titres of oestradiol in carriers are compatible with this hormone having a role in ovarian carcinogenesis in such women. Our findings could not be explained by differential contraceptive pill use.

Genetic and cellular mechanisms regulating anterior foregut and esophageal development.

Separation of the single anterior foregut tube into the esophagus and trachea involves cell proliferation and differentiation, as well as dynamic changes in cell-cell adhesion and migration. These biological processes are regulated and coordinated at multiple levels through the interplay of the epithelium and mesenchyme. Genetic studies and in vitro modeling have shed light on relevant regulatory networks that include a number of transcription factors and signaling pathways. These signaling molecules exhibit unique expression patterns and play specific functions in their respective territories before the separation process occurs. Disruption of regulatory networks inevitably leads to defective separation and malformation of the trachea and esophagus and results in the formation of a relatively common birth defect, esophageal atresia with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF). Significantly, some of the signaling pathways and transcription factors involved in anterior foregut separation continue to play important roles in the morphogenesis of the individual organs. In this review, we will focus on new findings related to these different developmental processes and discuss them in the context of developmental disorders or birth defects commonly seen in clinics.

In vitro three-dimensional modeling of fallopian tube secretory epithelial cells.

BACKGROUND: Fallopian tube secretory epithelial cells (FTSECs) have been implicated as a cell-of-origin for high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer. However, there are relatively few in vitro models of this tissue type available for use in studies of FTSEC biology and malignant transformation. In vitro three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models aim to recreate the architecture and geometry of tissues in vivo and restore the complex network of cell-cell/cell-matrix interactions that occur throughout the surface of the cell membrane. RESULTS: We have established and characterized 3D spheroid culture models of primary FTSECs. FTSEC spheroids contain central cores of hyaline matrix surrounded by mono- or multi-layer epithelial sheets. We found that 3D culturing alters the molecular characteristics of FTSECs compared to 2D cultures of the same cells. Gene expression profiling identified more than a thousand differentially expressed genes between 3D and 2D cultures of the same FTSEC lines. Pathways significantly under-represented in 3D FTSEC cultures were associated with cell cycle progression and DNA replication. This was also reflected in the reduced proliferative indices observed in 3D spheroids stained for the proliferation marker MIB1. Comparisons with gene expression profiles of fresh fallopian tube tissues revealed that 2D FTSEC cultures clustered with follicular phase tubal epithelium, whereas 3D FTSEC cultures clustered with luteal phase samples. CONCLUSIONS: This 3D model of fallopian tube secretory epithelial cells will advance our ability to study the underlying biology and etiology of fallopian tube tissues and the pathogenesis of high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer.

Role of DNA methylation and epigenetic silencing of HAND2 in endometrial cancer development.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer incidence is continuing to rise in the wake of the current ageing and obesity epidemics. Much of the risk for endometrial cancer development is influenced by the environment and lifestyle. Accumulating evidence suggests that the epigenome serves as the interface between the genome and the environment and that hypermethylation of stem cell polycomb group target genes is an epigenetic hallmark of cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the functional role of epigenetic factors in endometrial cancer development. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Epigenome-wide methylation analysis of >27,000 CpG sites in endometrial cancer tissue samples (n = 64) and control samples (n = 23) revealed that HAND2 (a gene encoding a transcription factor expressed in the endometrial stroma) is one of the most commonly hypermethylated and silenced genes in endometrial cancer. A novel integrative epigenome-transcriptome-interactome analysis further revealed that HAND2 is the hub of the most highly ranked differential methylation hotspot in endometrial cancer. These findings were validated using candidate gene methylation analysis in multiple clinical sample sets of tissue samples from a total of 272 additional women. Increased HAND2 methylation was a feature of premalignant endometrial lesions and was seen to parallel a decrease in RNA and protein levels. Furthermore, women with high endometrial HAND2 methylation in their premalignant lesions were less likely to respond to progesterone treatment. HAND2 methylation analysis of endometrial secretions collected using high vaginal swabs taken from women with postmenopausal bleeding specifically identified those patients with early stage endometrial cancer with both high sensitivity and high specificity (receiver operating characteristics area under the curve = 0.91 for stage 1A and 0.97 for higher than stage 1A). Finally, mice harbouring a Hand2 knock-out specifically in their endometrium were shown to develop precancerous endometrial lesions with increasing age, and these lesions also demonstrated a lack of PTEN expression. CONCLUSIONS: HAND2 methylation is a common and crucial molecular alteration in endometrial cancer that could potentially be employed as a biomarker for early detection of endometrial cancer and as a predictor of treatment response. The true clinical utility of HAND2 DNA methylation, however, requires further validation in prospective studies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Age-dependent DNA methylation of genes that are suppressed in stem cells is a hallmark of cancer.

Polycomb group proteins (PCGs) are involved in repression of genes that are required for stem cell differentiation. Recently, it was shown that promoters of PCG target genes (PCGTs) are 12-fold more likely to be methylated in cancer than non-PCGTs. Age is the most important demographic risk factor for cancer, and we hypothesized that its carcinogenic potential may be referred by irreversibly stabilizing stem cell features. To test this, we analyzed the methylation status of over 27,000 CpGs mapping to promoters of approximately 14,000 genes in whole blood samples from 261 postmenopausal women. We demonstrate that stem cell PCGTs are far more likely to become methylated with age than non-targets (odds ratio = 5.3 [3.8-7.4], P < 10(-10)), independently of sex, tissue type, disease state, and methylation platform. We identified a specific subset of 69 PCGT CpGs that undergo hypermethylation with age and validated this methylation signature in seven independent data sets encompassing over 900 samples, including normal and cancer solid tissues and a population of bone marrow mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (P < 10(-5)). We find that the age-PCGT methylation signature is present in preneoplastic conditions and may drive gene expression changes associated with carcinogenesis. These findings shed substantial novel insights into the epigenetic effects of aging and support the view that age may predispose to malignant transformation by irreversibly stabilizing stem cell features.

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.

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.

Modelling genetic and clinical heterogeneity in epithelial ovarian cancers.

The biology underlying early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) development is poorly understood. Identifying biomarkers associated with early-stage disease could have a significant impact on reducing mortality. Here, we describe establishment of a three-dimensional (3D) in vitro genetic model of EOC initiation and early-stage neoplastic progression. Normal primary ovarian epithelial (POE) cells, immortalized using hTERT (immortalised ovarian epithelial [IOE] cells), were partially transformed by overexpressing the CMYC oncogene (IOE(CMYC) cells). Subsequent expression of mutant alleles of KRAS (KRAS(G12V)) or BRAF (BRAF(V600E)) created double-mutant lines (IOE(CMYC.KRAS) and IOE(CMYC.BRAF)). The transformed phenotype of IOE(CMYC) cells was further enhanced in concert with KRAS(G12V)/BRAF(V600E) expression, as in vitro analyses indicated that IOE(CMYC) cells had undergone morphological and phenotypic changes characteristic of neoplastic progression. When cultured as 3D spheroids, IOE cells underwent growth arrest, reminiscent of nonproliferative, unstimulated POE in vivo. In contrast, IOSE(CMYC+BRAF/KRAS) cells formed highly proliferative, poly-aggregate spheroid structures, showing increased expression of the Wilms tumour 1 tumourigenic marker and MIB1 proliferation marker. Transcriptomic analyses identified different gene expression profiles between the different cell lines and novel candidate genes (e.g. RGS4, CTGF and THBS1) that are somatically altered in EOCs. Gene expression signatures were compared with signatures from primary EOCs; tumours with IOE(CMYC) 'like' signatures were more likely to be high grade (P = 0.018); tumours with BRAF signatures were associated with improved relapse-free survival (P = 0.003). In conclusion, we have established in vitro 3D models of early-stage EOCs, which reflect genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of the disease. Molecular genetic characteristics of these models correlated with molecular and clinical features of primary EOCs.

Common alleles in candidate susceptibility genes associated with risk and development of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Common germline genetic variation in the population is associated with susceptibility to epithelial ovarian cancer. Microcell-mediated chromosome transfer and expression microarray analysis identified nine genes associated with functional suppression of tumorogenicity in ovarian cancer cell lines; AIFM2, AKTIP, AXIN2, CASP5, FILIP1L, RBBP8, RGC32, RUVBL1 and STAG3. Sixty-three tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (tSNPs) in these genes were genotyped in 1,799 invasive ovarian cancer cases and 3,045 controls to look for associations with disease risk. Two SNPs in RUVBL1, rs13063604 and rs7650365, were associated with increased risk of serous ovarian cancer [HetOR = 1.42 (1.15-1.74) and the HomOR = 1.63 (1.10-1.42), p-trend = 0.0002] and [HetOR = 0.97 (0.80-1.17), HomOR = 0.74 (0.58-0.93), p-trend = 0.009], respectively. We genotyped rs13063604 and rs7650365 in an additional 4,590 cases and 6,031 controls from ten sites from the United States, Europe and Australia; however, neither SNP was significant in Stage 2. We also evaluated the potential role of tSNPs in these nine genes in ovarian cancer development by testing for allele-specific loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in 286 primary ovarian tumours. We found frequent LOH for tSNPs in AXIN2, AKTIP and RGC32 (64, 46 and 34%, respectively) and one SNP, rs1637001, in STAG3 showed significant allele-specific LOH with loss of the common allele in 94% of informative tumours (p = 0.015). Array comparative genomic hybridisation indicated that this nonrandom allelic imbalance was due to amplification of the rare allele. In conclusion, we show evidence for the involvement of a common allele of STAG3 in the development of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Association between invasive ovarian cancer susceptibility and 11 best candidate SNPs from breast cancer genome-wide association study.

Because both ovarian and breast cancer are hormone-related and are known to have some predisposition genes in common, we evaluated 11 of the most significant hits (six with confirmed associations with breast cancer) from the breast cancer genome-wide association study for association with invasive ovarian cancer. Eleven SNPs were initially genotyped in 2927 invasive ovarian cancer cases and 4143 controls from six ovarian cancer case-control studies. Genotype frequencies in cases and controls were compared using a likelihood ratio test in a logistic regression model stratified by study. Initially, three SNPs (rs2107425 in MRPL23, rs7313833 in PTHLH, rs3803662 in TNRC9) were weakly associated with ovarian cancer risk and one SNP (rs4954956 in NXPH2) was associated with serous ovarian cancer in non-Hispanic white subjects (P-trend < 0.1). These four SNPs were then genotyped in an additional 4060 cases and 6308 controls from eight independent studies. Only rs4954956 was significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk both in the replication study and in combined analyses. This association was stronger for the serous histological subtype [per minor allele odds ratio (OR) 1.07 95% CI 1.01-1.13, P-trend = 0.02 for all types of ovarian cancer and OR 1.14 95% CI 1.07-1.22, P-trend = 0.00017 for serous ovarian cancer]. In conclusion, we found that rs4954956 was associated with increased ovarian cancer risk, particularly for serous ovarian cancer. However, none of the six confirmed breast cancer susceptibility variants we tested was associated with ovarian cancer risk. Further work will be needed to identify the causal variant associated with rs4954956 or elucidate its function.

UKCTOCS update: applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis.

BACKGROUND: During trials that span decades, new evidence including progress in statistical methodology, may require revision of original assumptions. An example is the continued use of a constant-effect approach to analyse the mortality reduction which is often delayed in cancer-screening trials. The latter led us to re-examine our approach for the upcoming primary mortality analysis (2020) of long-term follow-up of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (LTFU UKCTOCS), having initially (2014) used the proportional hazards (PH) Cox model. METHODS: We wrote to 12 experts in statistics/epidemiology/screening trials, setting out current evidence, the importance of pre-specification, our previous mortality analysis (2014) and three possible choices for the follow-up analysis (2020) of the mortality outcome: (A) all data (2001-2020) using the Cox model (2014), (B) new data (2015-2020) only and (C) all data (2001-2020) using a test that allows for delayed effects. RESULTS: Of 11 respondents, eight supported changing the 2014 approach to allow for a potential delayed effect (option C), suggesting various tests while three favoured retaining the Cox model (option A). Consequently, we opted for the Versatile test introduced in 2016 which maintains good power for early, constant or delayed effects. We retained the Royston-Parmar model to estimate absolute differences in disease-specific mortality at 5, 10, 15 and 18 years. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to alter the follow-up analysis for the primary outcome on the basis of new evidence and using new statistical methodology for long-term follow-up is novel and has implications beyond UKCTOCS. There is an urgent need for consensus building on how best to design, test, estimate and report mortality outcomes from long-term randomised cancer screening trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000.