OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of annual CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) scan as surveillance for ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective audit. SETTING: NHS Trust. POPULATION: Three hundred and forty-one asymptomatic women enrolled for ovarian cancer screening: 179 were in a high-risk group (>10% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer), 77 in a moderate risk group (4-10% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer) and 71 in a near population risk group (<4% lifetime risk). METHODS: Retrospective audit of case records, laboratory CA125 results, radiology reports, histology records and local cancer registry data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ovarian cancers occurring in study population. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of TVU, and CA125 as a screening tool for ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Four ovarian cancers and one endometrial cancer occurred. One ovarian cancer was detected at surveillance, three occurred in women who presented symptomatically between screenings. Thirty women underwent exploratory surgery because of abnormal findings at surveillance. Two women had cancer (PPV = 6.7%); one had ovarian cancer and the other endometrial cancer. Twenty-eight women (93.3%) had no malignancy. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for TVU in the whole cohort were 33.3, 85.8, 0.6 and 99.8%, respectively. For high-risk individuals, the figures for TVU were 33.3, 84.5, 1.1 and 99.6, respectively. Combining both modalities for the whole cohort, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 66.7, 82.9, 1.5 and 99.8% and 50.0, 82.8, 1.3 and 99.7%, respectively, for the high-risk group alone. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian screening by annual TVU and CA125 is inefficient at detecting early-stage ovarian cancers.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of annual CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) scan as surveillance for ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective audit. SETTING: NHS Trust. POPULATION: Three hundred and forty-one asymptomatic women enrolled for ovarian cancer screening: 179 were in a high-risk group (>10% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer), 77 in a moderate risk group (4-10% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer) and 71 in a near population risk group (<4% lifetime risk). METHODS: Retrospective audit of case records, laboratory CA125 results, radiology reports, histology records and local cancer registry data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ovarian cancers occurring in study population. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of TVU, and CA125 as a screening tool for ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Four ovarian cancers and one endometrial cancer occurred. One ovarian cancer was detected at surveillance, three occurred in women who presented symptomatically between screenings. Thirty women underwent exploratory surgery because of abnormal findings at surveillance. Two women had cancer (PPV = 6.7%); one had ovarian cancer and the other endometrial cancer. Twenty-eight women (93.3%) had no malignancy. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for TVU in the whole cohort were 33.3, 85.8, 0.6 and 99.8%, respectively. For high-risk individuals, the figures for TVU were 33.3, 84.5, 1.1 and 99.6, respectively. Combining both modalities for the whole cohort, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 66.7, 82.9, 1.5 and 99.8% and 50.0, 82.8, 1.3 and 99.7%, respectively, for the high-risk group alone. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian screening by annual TVU and CA125 is inefficient at detecting early-stage ovarian cancers.
Authors: Steven J Skates; Mark H Greene; Saundra S Buys; Phuong L Mai; Powel Brown; Marion Piedmonte; Gustavo Rodriguez; John O Schorge; Mark Sherman; Mary B Daly; Thomas Rutherford; Wendy R Brewster; David M O'Malley; Edward Partridge; John Boggess; Charles W Drescher; Claudine Isaacs; Andrew Berchuck; Susan Domchek; Susan A Davidson; Robert Edwards; Steven A Elg; Katie Wakeley; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Deborah Armstrong; Ira Horowitz; Carol J Fabian; Joan Walker; Patrick M Sluss; William Welch; Lori Minasian; Nora K Horick; Carol H Kasten; Susan Nayfield; David Alberts; Dianne M Finkelstein; Karen H Lu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Melinda S Yates; Larissa A Meyer; Michael T Deavers; Molly S Daniels; Elizabeth R Keeler; Samuel C Mok; David M Gershenson; Karen H Lu Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-01-28
Authors: Stephanie Kearton; Karen Wills; Michael Bunting; Penny Blomfield; Paul A James; Jo Burke Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Gabriel N Mannis; Julia E Fehniger; Jennifer S Creasman; Vanessa L Jacoby; Mary S Beattie Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Henry T Lynch; Murray Joseph Casey; Carrie L Snyder; Chhanda Bewtra; Jane F Lynch; Matthew Butts; Andrew K Godwin Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 6.603