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.

Sensitivity of transvaginal ultrasound screening for endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study within the UKCTOCS cohort.

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