OBJECTIVE: In the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), ovarian cancer screening with transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) and CA-125 produced a large number of false-positive tests. We examined relationships between histopathologic diagnoses, false-positive test group, and participant and screening test characteristics. METHODS: The PLCO ovarian cancer screening arm included 39,105 women aged 55-74 years assigned toannual CA-125 and TVU. Histopathologic diagnoses from women with false-positive tests and subsequent surgery were reviewed in this analysis: all CA125+ (n=121); all CA125+/TVU+ (n=46); and a random sample of TVU+ (n=373). Demographic and ovarian cancer risk factor data were self-reported. Pathologic diagnoses were abstracted from surgical pathology reports. We compared participant characteristics and pathologic diagnoses by category of false-positive using Pearson χ2, Fisher's exact, or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Women with a false-positive TVU were younger (P<0.001), heavier (P<0.001), and reported a higher frequency of prior hysterectomy (P<0.001). Serous cystadenoma, the most common benign ovarian diagnosis, was more frequent among women with TVU+ compared to CA-125+ and CA-125+/TVU+ (P<0.001). Benign non-ovarian findings were commonly associated with all false-positives, although more frequently with CA-125+ than TVU+ or CA-125+/TVU+ groups (P=0.019). Non-ovarian cancers were diagnosed most frequently among CA-125+ (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: False-positive ovarian cancer screening tests were associated with a range of histopathologic diagnoses, some of which may be related to patient and screening test characteristics. Further research into the predictors of false-positive ovarian cancer screening tests may aid efforts to reduce false-positive results. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), ovarian cancer screening with transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) and CA-125 produced a large number of false-positive tests. We examined relationships between histopathologic diagnoses, false-positive test group, and participant and screening test characteristics. METHODS: The PLCO ovarian cancer screening arm included 39,105 women aged 55-74 years assigned to annual CA-125 and TVU. Histopathologic diagnoses from women with false-positive tests and subsequent surgery were reviewed in this analysis: all CA125+ (n=121); all CA125+/TVU+ (n=46); and a random sample of TVU+ (n=373). Demographic and ovarian cancer risk factor data were self-reported. Pathologic diagnoses were abstracted from surgical pathology reports. We compared participant characteristics and pathologic diagnoses by category of false-positive using Pearson χ2, Fisher's exact, or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS:Women with a false-positive TVU were younger (P<0.001), heavier (P<0.001), and reported a higher frequency of prior hysterectomy (P<0.001). Serous cystadenoma, the most common benign ovarian diagnosis, was more frequent among women with TVU+ compared to CA-125+ and CA-125+/TVU+ (P<0.001). Benign non-ovarian findings were commonly associated with all false-positives, although more frequently with CA-125+ than TVU+ or CA-125+/TVU+ groups (P=0.019). Non-ovarian cancers were diagnosed most frequently among CA-125+ (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:False-positive ovarian cancer screening tests were associated with a range of histopathologic diagnoses, some of which may be related to patient and screening test characteristics. Further research into the predictors of false-positive ovarian cancer screening tests may aid efforts to reduce false-positive results. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: E J Pavlik; P D DePriest; H H Gallion; F R Ueland; M B Reedy; R J Kryscio; J R van Nagell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: P C Prorok; G L Andriole; R S Bresalier; S S Buys; D Chia; E D Crawford; R Fogel; E P Gelmann; F Gilbert; M A Hasson; R B Hayes; C C Johnson; J S Mandel; A Oberman; B O'Brien; M M Oken; S Rafla; D Reding; W Rutt; J L Weissfeld; L Yokochi; J K Gohagan Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2000-12
Authors: Jeffrey D Seidman; Robert A Soslow; Russell Vang; Jules J Berman; Mark H Stoler; Mark E Sherman; Esther Oliva; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; David M Berman; Larry J Copeland Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Rachel Hallett; Andy Ryan; Matthew Burnell; Aarti Sharma; Sara Lewis; Susan Davies; Susan Philpott; Alberto Lopes; Keith Godfrey; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Ian Scott; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Lesley Fallowfield; Naveena Singh; Anne Dawnay; Steven J Skates; Mahesh Parmar; Ian Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: H Kobayashi; Y Yamada; T Sado; M Sakata; S Yoshida; R Kawaguchi; S Kanayama; H Shigetomi; S Haruta; Y Tsuji; S Ueda; T Kitanaka Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2007-07-21 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Edward Partridge; Aimee R Kreimer; Robert T Greenlee; Craig Williams; Jian-Lun Xu; Timothy R Church; Bruce Kessel; Christine C Johnson; Joel L Weissfeld; Claudine Isaacs; Gerald L Andriole; Sheryl Ogden; Lawrence R Ragard; Saundra S Buys Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Amanda Black; Kevin Jacobs; Hannah P Yang; Christine D Berg; Neil Caporaso; Ulrike Peters; Lawrence Ragard; Saundra S Buys; Stephen Chanock; Patricia Hartge Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 3.240