Literature DB >> 16110018

Screening for familial ovarian cancer: failure of current protocols to detect ovarian cancer at an early stage according to the international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics system.

Diane Stirling1, D Gareth R Evans, Gabriella Pichert, Andrew Shenton, Elaine N Kirk, Sylvia Rimmer, C Michael Steel, Sheila Lawson, R M Camille Busby-Earle, Jane Walker, Fiona I Lalloo, Diana M Eccles, Anneke M Lucassen, Mary E Porteous.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of annual ovarian cancer screening (transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA-125 estimation) in detecting presymptomatic ovarian cancer in women at increased genetic risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of 1,110 women at increased risk of ovarian cancer were screened between January 1991 and March 2004; 553 were moderate-risk individuals (4% to 10% lifetime risk) and 557 were high-risk individuals (> 10% lifetime risk). Outcome measurements include the number and stage of screen-detected cancers, the number and stage of cancers not detected at screening, the number of equivocal screening results requiring recall/repetition, and the number of women undergoing surgery for benign disease.
RESULTS: Thirteen epithelial ovarian malignancies (12 invasive and one borderline), developed in the cohort. Ten tumors were detected at screening: three International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I (including borderline), two stage II, four stage III, and one stage IV. Of the three cancers not detected by screening, two were stage III and one was stage IV; 29 women underwent diagnostic surgery but were found not to have ovarian cancer.
CONCLUSION: Annual surveillance by transvaginal ultrasound scanning and serum CA-125 measurement in women at increased familial risk of ovarian cancer is ineffective in detecting tumors at a sufficiently early stage to influence prognosis. With a positive predictive value of 17% and a sensitivity of less than 50%, the performance of ultrasound does not satisfy the WHO screening standards. In addition, the combined protocol has a particularly high false-positive rate in premenopausal women, leading to unnecessary surgical intervention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16110018     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  43 in total

1.  CA125 in ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Nathalie Scholler; Nicole Urban
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.851

2.  Factors associated with deciding between risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and ovarian cancer screening among high-risk women enrolled in GOG-0199: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

Authors:  Phuong L Mai; Marion Piedmonte; Paul K Han; Richard P Moser; Joan L Walker; Gustavo Rodriguez; John Boggess; Thomas J Rutherford; Oliver Zivanovic; David E Cohn; J Tate Thigpen; Robert M Wenham; Michael L Friedlander; Chad A Hamilton; Jamie Bakkum-Gamez; Alexander B Olawaiye; Martee L Hensley; Mark H Greene; Helen Q Huang; Lari Wenzel
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Mean of CA 125 in making therapy decision in adnexal inflammatory tumors.

Authors:  Branka Nikolić; Ana Mitrović; Jelena Lazić
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.363

4.  Cancer Risk Awareness and Concern among Women with a Family History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  M Robyn Andersen; Jason Thorpe; Diana S M Buist; J David Beatty; Kate Watabayashi; Nancy Hanson; Robert Resta; Jessica Chubak; Nicole Urban
Journal:  Behav Med       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 3.104

5.  Clinical background and outcomes of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in Japan.

Authors:  Hidetaka Nomura; Masayuki Sekine; Shiro Yokoyama; Masami Arai; Takayuki Enomoto; Nobuhiro Takeshima; Seigo Nakamura
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Self administered screening for hereditary cancers in conjunction with mammography and ultrasound.

Authors:  Charles H McDonnell; David J Seidenwurm; Diana E McDonnell; Kristie A Bobolis
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  A prospective study of quality of life among women undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy versus gynecologic screening for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Carolyn Y Fang; Carol Cherry; Karthik Devarajan; Tianyu Li; John Malick; Mary B Daly
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  A prospective study of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and longitudinal CA-125 screening among women at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer: design and baseline characteristics: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

Authors:  Mark H Greene; Marion Piedmonte; Dave Alberts; Mitchell Gail; Martee Hensley; Zoe Miner; Phuong L Mai; Jennifer Loud; Gustavo Rodriguez; Jack Basil; John Boggess; Peter E Schwartz; Joseph L Kelley; Katie E Wakeley; Lori Minasian; Stephen Skates
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer Team of the University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG) - a Report.

Authors:  Marian Je Mourits; Jan C Oosterwijk; Jakob de Vries
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 2.857

10.  The preclinical natural history of serous ovarian cancer: defining the target for early detection.

Authors:  Patrick O Brown; Chana Palmer
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.