Exploration of Preliminary Objective Triage by Menopause Score and CA 125 Result Prior to Accelerating Fast-Track Booking for Suspected Ovarian Cancer-A Role for the Pathway Navigator?

The 28-days-to-diagnosis pathway is the current expected standard of care for women with symptoms of ovarian cancer in the UK. However, the anticipated conversion rate of symptoms to cancer is only 3%, and use of the pathway is increasing. A rapid triage at the moment of receipt of the referral might allow resources to be allocated more appropriately. In secondary care, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) use the risk of malignancy index (RMI) score, (multiply menopausal status pre = 1 or post = 3 × ultrasound score = 0 - 3 × the CA 125 level), using a score of >200, to triage urgency and management in possible ovarian cancer cases. The most powerful determinant of the RMI score variables is CA 125 level, an objective number. Could a simple modification of the RMI score retain a high sensitivity for cancer whilst improving specificity and, consequently, decrease the morbidity of false-positive classification? To test this hypothesis, a retrospective evaluation of an ovarian two-week-wait telephone clinic of one consultant gynaecological oncologist was undertaken. Enquiry re menopause status was scored as one for pre- and three for postmenopausal or uncertain. CA 125 levels of >67 u/mL for premenopausal and >23 u/mL for postmenopausal women were used to precipitate urgent cross-sectional imaging requests and MDT opinions. These CA 125 cut thresholds were calculated using an assumption that the RMI imaging score, regardless of whether the result was available, could be three. We contemplate that women who did not exceed a provisional RMI score of >200 might be informed they are extremely unlikely to have cancer, removed from the malignancy tracker and appropriate follow-up arranged. One hundred and forty consecutive cases were analysed; 43% were deemed premenopausal and 57% postmenopausal. Twenty of the women had cancer, eighteen (90%) of whom had an RMI > 200. One hundred and twenty were benign, and only twenty-three (19%) classified as urgent cases in need of accelerated referral to imaging. In contrast, CA 125 > 35 u/mL, whilst retaining the sensitivity of 90%, misclassified 36 (30%) of the benign cases. It is possible that a telephone triage via a questionnaire determining menopausal status and the CA 125 result could offer a sensitivity for cancer of 90% and urgent expert review of under 20% of benign cases. This rapid initial telephone assessment could be presented by a trained pathway navigator, physician associate or nurse specialist. Substantial savings in NHS cancer services resources, anxieties all around and reduced patient morbidity may occur as a result.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Completeness and accuracy of national cancer and death registration for outcome ascertainment in trials-an ovarian cancer exemplar.

BACKGROUND: There is a trend to increasing use of routinely collected health data to ascertain outcome measures in trials. We report on the completeness and accuracy of national ovarian cancer and death registration in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). METHODS: Of the 202,638 participants, 202,632 were successfully linked and followed through national cancer and death registries of Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Women with registrations of any of 19 pre-defined ICD-10 codes suggestive of tubo-ovarian cancer or notification of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer from hospital episode statistics or trial sites were identified. Copies of hospital and primary care notes were retrieved and reviewed by an independent outcomes review committee. National registration of site and cause of death as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer (C56/C57/C48) obtained up to 3 months after trial censorship was compared to that assigned by outcomes review (reference standard). RESULTS: Outcome review was undertaken in 3110 women on whom notification was received between 2001 and 2014. Ovarian cancer was confirmed in 1324 of whom 1125 had a relevant cancer registration. Sensitivity and specificity of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer registration were 85.0% (1125/1324; 95% CI 83.7-86.2%) and 94.0% (1679/1786; 95% CI 93.2-94.8%), respectively. Of 2041 death registrations reviewed, 681 were confirmed to have a tubo-ovarian cancer of whom 605 had relevant death registration. Sensitivity and specificity were 88.8% (605/681; 95% CI 86.4-91.2%) and 96.7% (1482/1533, 95% CI 95.8-97.6%), respectively. When multiple electronic health record sources were considered, sensitivity for cancer site increased to 91.1% (1206/1324, 95% CI 89.4-92.5%) and for cause of death 94.0% (640/681, 95% CI 91.9-95.5%). Of 1232 with cancer registration, 8.7% (107/1232) were wrongly designated as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers by the registry and 4.0% (47/1172) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancers were mis-registered. In 656 with death registrations, 7.8% (51/656) were wrongly assigned as due to ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers while 6.2% (40/645) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancer deaths were mis-registered. CONCLUSION: Follow-up of trial participants for tubo-ovarian cancer using national registry data will result in incomplete ascertainment, particularly of the site due in part to the latency of registration. This can be reduced by using other routinely collected data such as hospital episode statistics. Central adjudication by experts though resource intensive adds value by improving the accuracy of diagnoses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000.

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.

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.

Changing trends in reproductive/lifestyle factors in UK women: descriptive study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

OBJECTIVE: There has been considerable interest in the impact of reproductive factors on health but there are little data on how these have varied over time. We explore trends in reproductive/lifestyle factors of postmenopausal British women by analysing self-reported data from participants of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). DESIGN: Prospective birth cohort analysis. SETTING: Population cohort invited between 2001 and 2005 from age-sex registers of 27 Primary Care Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and recruited through 13 National Health Service Trusts. PARTICIPANTS: 202 638 postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years at randomisation to UKCTOCS between April 2001 and October 2005. INTERVENTIONS: Women were stratified into the following six birth cohorts (1925-1929, 1930-1934, 1935-1939, 1940-1944, 1945-1949, 1950-1955) based on year of birth. Self-reported data on reproductive factors provided at recruitment were explored using tabular and graphical summaries to examine for differences between the birth cohorts. OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in mean age at menarche and menopause, use of oral contraceptives, change in family size, infertility treatments, tubal ligation and hysterectomy rates. RESULTS: Women born between 1935 and 1955 made up 86% of the cohort. Median age at menarche decreased from 13.4 for women born between 1925 and 1929 to 12.8 for women born between 1950 and 1955. Increased use of the oral contraceptives, infertility treatments and smaller family size was observed in the younger birth cohorts. Tubal ligation rates increased for those born between 1925 and 1945, but this increase did not persist in subsequent cohorts. Hysterectomy rates (17-20%) did not change over time. CONCLUSIONS: The trends seen in this large cohort are likely to reflect the reproductive history of the UK female postmenopausal population of similar age. Since these are risk factors for hormone-related cancers, these trends are important in understanding the changing incidence of these cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: 22488978.

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.

Risk Algorithm Using Serial Biomarker Measurements Doubles the Number of Screen-Detected Cancers Compared With a Single-Threshold Rule in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.

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

Implementation of a robotic surgical program in gynaecological oncology and comparison with prior laparoscopic series.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery in gynaecological oncology is a rapidly developing field as it offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy. An audit was performed on the outcome of robotic surgery during our learning curve and compared with recent well-established laparoscopic procedure data. METHOD: Following acquisition of the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA), we prospectively analysed all cases performed over the first six months by one experienced gynaecologist who had been appropriately trained and mentored. Data on age, BMI, pathology, surgery type, blood loss, morbidity, return to theatre, hospital stay, and readmission rate were collected and compared with a consecutive series over the preceding 6 months performed laparoscopically by the same team. RESULTS: A comparison of two consecutive series was made. The mean age was somewhat different, 55 years in the robotic versus 69 years in the laparoscopic group, but obesity was a feature of both groups with a mean of BMI 29.3 versus 28.06, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.54). Three subgroups of minimal access surgical procedures were performed: total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy (TH + BSO), total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy plus bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy (TH + BSO + BPLND), and radical hysterectomy plus bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy (RH + BPLND). The mean time taken to perform surgery for TH + BSO was longer in the robotic group, 151.2 min compared to 126.3 min in the laparoscopic group. TH + BSO + BPLND surgical time was similar to 178.3 min in robotic group and 176.5 min in laparoscopic group. RH + BPLND surgical time was similar, 263.6 min (robotic arm) and 264.0 min (laparoscopic arm). However, the numbers in this initial analysis were small especially in the last two subgroups and do not allow for statistical analysis. The rate of complications necessitating intervention (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 2/3) was higher in the robotic arm (22.7%) compared to the laparoscopic approach (4.5%). The readmission rate was higher in the robotic group (18.2%) compared to the laparoscopic group (4.5%). The return to theatre in the robotic group was 18.2% and 4.5% in laparoscopic group. Uncomplicated robotic surgery hospital stay appeared to be shorter, 1.3 days compared to the uncomplicated laparoscopic group, 2.5 days. There was no conversion to the open procedure in either arm. Estimated blood loss in all cases was less than 100 mL in both groups. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in blood loss; however, the hospital stay in uncomplicated cases appears to be longer in the laparoscopic arm. Surgical robotic time is equivalent to laparoscopic in complex cases but may be longer in cases not requiring lymph node dissection. The robotic surgery team learning curve may be associated with higher rate of morbidity. Further research on the benefits to the surgeon is needed to clarify the whole picture of this versatile novel surgical approach.

Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials.

BACKGROUND: Participants in trials evaluating preventive interventions such as screening are on average healthier than the general population. To decrease this 'healthy volunteer effect' (HVE) women were randomly invited from population registers to participate in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) and not allowed to self refer. This report assesses the extent of the HVE still prevalent in UKCTOCS and considers how certain shortfalls in mortality and incidence can be related to differences in socioeconomic status. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2005, 202 638 postmenopausal women joined the trial out of 1 243 312 women randomly invited from local health authority registers. The cohort was flagged for deaths and cancer registrations and mean follow up at censoring was 5.55 years for mortality, and 2.58 years for cancer incidence. Overall and cause-specific Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMRs) and Standardised Incidence Ratios (SIRs) were calculated based on national mortality (2005) and cancer incidence (2006) statistics. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2007) was used to assess the link between socioeconomic status and mortality/cancer incidence, and differences between the invited and recruited populations. RESULTS: The SMR for all trial participants was 37%. By subgroup, the SMRs were higher for: younger age groups, extremes of BMI distribution and with each increasing year in trial. There was a clear trend between lower socioeconomic status and increased mortality but less pronounced with incidence. While the invited population had higher mean IMD scores (more deprived) than the national average, those who joined the trial were less deprived. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to screening trials through invitation from population registers does not prevent a pronounced HVE on mortality. The impact on cancer incidence is much smaller. Similar shortfalls can be expected in other screening RCTs and it maybe prudent to use the various mortality and incidence rates presented as guides for calculating event rates and power in RCTs involving women.

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.

Experience in the management of patients older than 80 years with vulval cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Vulval cancer is a disease of an increasing elderly population and consequently comorbidities are common. These conditions may preclude the application of standard therapy. OBJECTIVE: To review the outcome of women with vulval cancer older than 80 years comparing those who received recommended treatment (protocol-adherent) with those who did not (protocol-violated). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of a consecutive series of patients discussed over a 6-year period at our Multidisciplinary Team meeting. Treatment was deemed protocol-adherent if the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines were followed and protocol-violated if not. Outcome data were retrieved from case notes, primary care input, cancer registry database, and reviewed in terms of survival and recurrence. RESULTS: Twenty-three cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva were identified between 1999 and 2005 at Portsmouth Oncology Centre. Eight women were protocol-adherent and 15 women were not. Treatment decisions were made after individual discussion in conjunction with performance status. Protocol adherence was associated with a 25% recurrence rate and violation with a 53% recurrence rate. Median survival was shorter in the protocol-violated group compared with the adherent group (18 months vs 43.5 months respectively). CONCLUSION: These data imply that this issue arises not infrequently, perhaps every 3 to 4 months at each gynecological oncology Multidisciplinary Team meeting in the UK. The higher recurrence rate and shorter median survival among the protocol-violated group supports the validity of the current Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists treatment guidelines in this elderly age group. A prospective scoring system should be evolved to ensure a more objective approach to such patients with considerable co-morbidities.

Cytological follow-up of women older than 50 years with high-grade cervical smear treated by large loop excision.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cytological surveillance for women older than 50 years, to detect recurrent or residual disease after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by loop excision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women undergoing a large loop excision for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or glandular cytological abnormalities during a period of 4 years (2000-2003) were identified from the colposcopy database. Women younger than 50 years or with a history of previous loop excision were excluded. Clinical data, histology, and follow-up cytology results for up to 2 years after treatment were collected. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were identified. Age of the women ranged from 51 to 66 years, with a median of 51.5 years. Thirty-two (36%) had severe dyskaryosis, 53 (60%) had moderate dyskaryosis, and 4 (4%) had glandular abnormalities on cervical cytology before the loop biopsy. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2,3 and glandular abnormalities, CIN 1, and no abnormalities were found in 50 (56%), 18 (20%), and 19 (22%) loop specimens, respectively. Invasive disease was found in 2 (2%) cases. They were excluded from further analysis. The lesion was completely excised in 58 (65%) and incompletely excised in 23 (26%) patients. It was not possible to comment on the margin status in 8 (9%) cases. These were excluded from further analysis. Of the 23 women who had margins involved, 8 (35%) had ectocervical, 12 (52%) had endocervical, and 3 (13%) had both margins involved. All women had follow-up cervical smears at the cytology clinic. At 6-month follow-up, 3 patients had persistent CIN and 4 had borderline changes on cervical smears. At 2 years follow-up, 3 patients had high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion abnormalities, 2 of whom had clear margins at their loop biopsy earlier.Twenty percent of the women with positive endocervical margins on loop excision needed further treatment for residual or persistent disease on follow-up. Overall, 4 (5%) of the 79 patients who had a loop biopsy went on to have cytological abnormalities suggestive of persistent/residual disease needing further treatment. CONCLUSION: Cytological surveillance for post-loop biopsy follow-up seems to be a good option for detecting residual disease in this high-risk group of patients.

Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer has a high case-fatality ratio, with most women not diagnosed until the disease is in its advanced stages. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) is a randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of screening on mortality. This report summarises the outcome of the prevalence (initial) screen in UKCTOCS. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2005, a total of 202 638 post-menopausal women aged 50-74 years were randomly assigned to no treatment (control; n=101 359); annual CA125 screening (interpreted using a risk of ovarian cancer algorithm) with transvaginal ultrasound scan as a second-line test (multimodal screening [MMS]; n=50 640); or annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound (USS; n=50 639) alone in a 2:1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random number algorithm. All women provided a blood sample at recruitment. Women randomised to the MMS group had their blood tested for CA125 and those randomised to the USS group were sent an appointment to attend for a transvaginal scan. Women with abnormal screens had repeat tests. Women with persistent abnormality on repeat screens underwent clinical evaluation and, where appropriate, surgery. This trial is registered as ISRCTN22488978 and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. FINDINGS: In the prevalence screen, 50 078 (98.9%) women underwent MMS, and 48 230 (95.2%) underwent USS. The main reasons for withdrawal were death (two MMS, 28 USS), non-ovarian cancer or other disease (none MMS, 66 USS), removal of ovaries (five MMS, 29 USS), relocation (none MMS, 39 USS), failure to attend three appointments for the screen (72 MMS, 757 USS), and participant changing their mind (483 MMS, 1490 USS). Overall, 4355 of 50 078 (8.7%) women in the MMS group and 5779 of 48 230 (12.0%) women in the USS group required a repeat test, and 167 (0.3%) women in the MMS group and 1894 (3.9%) women in the USS group required clinical evaluation. 97 of 50 078 (0.2%) women from the MMS group and 845 of 48 230 (1.8%) from the USS group underwent surgery. 42 (MMS) and 45 (USS) primary ovarian and tubal cancers were detected, including 28 borderline tumours (eight MMS, 20 USS). 28 (16 MMS, 12 USS) of 58 (48.3%; 95% CI 35.0-61.8) of the invasive cancers were stage I/II, with no difference (p=0.396) in stage distribution between the groups. A further 13 (five MMS, eight USS) women developed primary ovarian cancer during the year after the screen. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values for all primary ovarian and tubal cancers were 89.4%, 99.8%, and 43.3% for MMS, and 84.9%, 98.2%, and 5.3% for USS, respectively. For primary invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancers, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values were 89.5%, 99.8%, and 35.1% for MMS, and 75.0%, 98.2%, and 2.8% for USS, respectively. There was a significant difference in specificity (p<0.0001) but not sensitivity between the two screening groups for both primary ovarian and tubal cancers as well as primary epithelial invasive ovarian and tubal cancers. INTERPRETATION: The sensitivity of the MMS and USS screening strategies is encouraging. Specificity was higher in the MMS than in the USS group, resulting in lower rates of repeat testing and surgery. This in part reflects the high prevalence of benign adnexal abnormalities and the more frequent detection of borderline tumours in the USS group. The prevalence screen has established that the screening strategies are feasible. The results of ongoing screening are awaited so that the effect of screening on mortality can be determined.

Recruitment to multicentre trials--lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the factors that contributed to successful recruitment of more than 200,000 women to the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest ever randomised controlled trials. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: 13 NHS trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women aged 50-74; exclusion criteria included ovarian malignancy, bilateral oophorectomy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, active non-ovarian malignancy, and participation in other ovarian cancer screening trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Achievement of target recruitment, acceptance rates of invitation, and recruitment rates. RESULTS: The trial was set up in 13 centres with 27 adjoining local health authorities. The coordinating centre team was led by one of the senior investigators, who was closely involved in planning and day to day trial management. Of 1 243,282 women invited, 23.2% (288 955) replied that they were eligible and would like to participate. Of those sent appointments, 73.6% (205 090) attended for recruitment. The acceptance rate varied from 19% to 33% between trial centres. Measures to ensure target recruitment included named coordinating centre staff supporting and monitoring each centre, prompt identification and resolution of logistic problems, varying the volume of invitations by centre, using local non-attendance rates to determine the size of recruitment clinics, and organising large ad hoc clinics supported by coordinating centre staff. The trial randomised 202,638 women in 4.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Planning and trial management are as important as trial design and require equal attention from senior investigators. Successful recruitment needs constant monitoring by a committed proactive management team that is willing to explore individual solutions for different centres and use central resources to improve local recruitment. Automation of trial processes with web based trial management systems is crucial in large multicentre randomised controlled trials. Recruitment can be further enhanced by using information videos and group discussions. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22488978.

Combining multiple serum tumor markers improves detection of stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Currently available tumor markers for ovarian cancer are still inadequate in both sensitivity and specificity to be used for population-based screening. Artificial neural network (ANN) as a modeling tool has demonstrated its ability to assimilate information from multiple sources and to detect subtle and complex patterns. In this paper, an ANN model was evaluated for its performance in detecting early stage epithelial ovarian cancer using multiple serum markers. METHODS: Serum specimens collected at four institutions in the US, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom were analyzed for CA 125II, CA 72-4, CA 15-3 and macrophage colony stimulating factor (M-CSF). The four tumor marker values were then used as inputs to an ANN derived using a training set from 100 apparently healthy women, 45 women with benign conditions arising from the ovary and 55 invasive epithelial ovarian cancer patients (including 27 stage I/II cases). A separate validation set from 27 apparently healthy women, 56 women with benign conditions and 35 women with various types of malignant pelvic masses was used to monitor the ANN's performance during training. An independent test data set from 98 apparently healthy women and 52 early stage epithelial ovarian cancer patients (38 stage I and 4 stage II invasive cases and 10 stage I borderline ovarian tumor cases) was used to evaluate the ANN. RESULTS: ROC analysis confirmed the overall superiority of the ANN-derived composite index over CA 125II alone (p=0.0333). At a fixed specificity of 98%, the sensitivities for ANN and CA 125II alone were 71% (37/52) and 46% (24/52) (p=0.047), respectively, for detecting early stage epithelial ovarian cancer, and 71% (30/42) and 43% (18/42) (p=0.040), respectively, for detecting invasive early stage epithelial ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of multiple tumor markers through an ANN improves the overall accuracy to discern healthy women from patients with early stage ovarian cancer. Analysis of multiple markers with an ANN may be a better choice than the use of CA 125II alone in a two-step approach for population screening in which a secondary test such as ultrasound is used to keep the overall specificity at an acceptable level.