OBJECTIVE: Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Given the low prevalence of this disease, the effectiveness of screening strategies has not been established. We wished to estimate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of potential screening strategies for ovarian cancer using population-specific data. METHODS: A Markov state transition model to simulate the natural history of ovarian cancer in a cohort of women age 20 to 100. Age-specific incidence and mortality rates were obtained from SEER. Base-case characteristics of a potential screening test were sensitivity 85%, specificity 95%, and cost $50. Outcome measures were mortality reduction, lifetime number of false positive screening tests, positive predictive value, years of life saved (YLS), lifetime costs in US dollars, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, in cost/YLS). RESULTS: Model-predicted lifetime risk of ovarian cancer (1.38%), lifetime risk of death from ovarian cancer (0.95%), and stage distribution (stage I-19%; stage II-7%; stage III, IV, or unstaged - 74%) closely approximated SEER data. Annual screening resulted in 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality, with ICER of $73,469/YLS (base case) and $36,025/YLS (high-risk population) compared to no screening. In the base case, the average lifetime number of false positive tests is 1.06. Cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to test frequency, specificity and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening for ovarian cancer has the potential to be cost effective, particularly in high-risk populations. Clinically acceptable positive predictive values are achieved if specificity exceeds 99%. Mortality reduction above 50% may not be achievable without screening intervals less than 12 months.
OBJECTIVE:Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Given the low prevalence of this disease, the effectiveness of screening strategies has not been established. We wished to estimate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of potential screening strategies for ovarian cancer using population-specific data. METHODS: A Markov state transition model to simulate the natural history of ovarian cancer in a cohort of women age 20 to 100. Age-specific incidence and mortality rates were obtained from SEER. Base-case characteristics of a potential screening test were sensitivity 85%, specificity 95%, and cost $50. Outcome measures were mortality reduction, lifetime number of false positive screening tests, positive predictive value, years of life saved (YLS), lifetime costs in US dollars, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, in cost/YLS). RESULTS: Model-predicted lifetime risk of ovarian cancer (1.38%), lifetime risk of death from ovarian cancer (0.95%), and stage distribution (stage I-19%; stage II-7%; stage III, IV, or unstaged - 74%) closely approximated SEER data. Annual screening resulted in 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality, with ICER of $73,469/YLS (base case) and $36,025/YLS (high-risk population) compared to no screening. In the base case, the average lifetime number of false positive tests is 1.06. Cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to test frequency, specificity and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening for ovarian cancer has the potential to be cost effective, particularly in high-risk populations. Clinically acceptable positive predictive values are achieved if specificity exceeds 99%. Mortality reduction above 50% may not be achievable without screening intervals less than 12 months.
Authors: Joellen M Schildkraut; Lauren C Peres; Traci N Bethea; Fabian Camacho; Deanna Chyn; Emily K Cloyd; Elisa V Bandera; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Loren Lipworth; Charlotte E Joslin; Faith G Davis; Patricia G Moorman; Evan Myers; Heather M Ochs-Balcom; Veronica Wendy Setiawan; Malcolm C Pike; Anna H Wu; Lynn Rosenberg Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Uri Ladabaum; Grace Wang; Jonathan Terdiman; Amie Blanco; Miriam Kuppermann; C Richard Boland; James Ford; Elena Elkin; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sean M Devlin; Paula H Diehr; M Robyn Andersen; Barbara A Goff; Patrick T Tyree; William E Lafferty Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: N B Rettenmaier; C R Rettenmaier; T Wojciechowski; L N Abaid; J V Brown; J P Micha; B H Goldstein Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Clara Bodelon; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Saundra S Buys; Amanda Black; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Wei-Lei Yang; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Archana Simmons; Andy Ryan; Evangelia Ourania Fourkala; Zhen Lu; Keith A Baggerly; Yang Zhao; Karen H Lu; David Bowtell; Ian Jacobs; Steven J Skates; Wei-Wu He; Usha Menon; Robert C Bast Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 12.531