Literature DB >> 21642681

Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial.

Saundra S Buys1, Edward Partridge, Amanda Black, Christine C Johnson, Lois Lamerato, Claudine Isaacs, Douglas J Reding, Robert T Greenlee, Lance A Yokochi, Bruce Kessel, E David Crawford, Timothy R Church, Gerald L Andriole, Joel L Weissfeld, Mona N Fouad, David Chia, Barbara O'Brien, Lawrence R Ragard, Jonathan D Clapp, Joshua M Rathmell, Thomas L Riley, Patricia Hartge, Paul F Pinsky, Claire S Zhu, Grant Izmirlian, Barnett S Kramer, Anthony B Miller, Jian-Lun Xu, Philip C Prorok, John K Gohagan, Christine D Berg.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Screening for ovarian cancer with cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) and transvaginal ultrasound has an unknown effect on mortality.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of screening for ovarian cancer on mortality in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial of 78,216 women aged 55 to 74 years assigned to undergo either annual screening (n = 39,105) or usual care (n = 39,111) at 10 screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. Intervention The intervention group was offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years and transvaginal ultrasound for 4 years. Participants and their health care practitioners received the screening test results and managed evaluation of abnormal results. The usual care group was not offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years or transvaginal ultrasound but received their usual medical care. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 13 years (median [range], 12.4 years [10.9-13.0 years]) for cancer diagnoses and death until February 28, 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality from ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers. Secondary outcomes included ovarian cancer incidence and complications associated with screening examinations and diagnostic procedures.
RESULTS: Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 212 women (5.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 176 (4.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.48). There were 118 deaths caused by ovarian cancer (3.1 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 100 deaths (2.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (mortality RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.82-1.71). Of 3285 women with false-positive results, 1080 underwent surgical follow-up; of whom, 163 women experienced at least 1 serious complication (15%). There were 2924 deaths due to other causes (excluding ovarian, colorectal, and lung cancer) (76.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 2914 deaths (76.2 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Among women in the general US population, simultaneous screening with CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound compared with usual care did not reduce ovarian cancer mortality. Diagnostic evaluation following a false-positive screening test result was associated with complications. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21642681     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.766

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   157.335


  354 in total

Review 1.  Protein biomarkers of ovarian cancer: the forest and the trees.

Authors:  Brian M Nolen; Anna E Lokshin
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.404

Review 2.  Genetics for the general internist.

Authors:  Christina M Laukaitis
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  Finding ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Patricia Hartge; James L Speyer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Advancing the paradigm for cardiovascular imaging research.

Authors:  Michael S Lauer
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Ovarian cancer: diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  J M Wenderlein
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Rethinking ovarian cancer: recommendations for improving outcomes.

Authors:  Sebastian Vaughan; Jermaine I Coward; Robert C Bast; Andy Berchuck; Jonathan S Berek; James D Brenton; George Coukos; Christopher C Crum; Ronny Drapkin; Dariush Etemadmoghadam; Michael Friedlander; Hani Gabra; Stan B Kaye; Chris J Lord; Ernst Lengyel; Douglas A Levine; Iain A McNeish; Usha Menon; Gordon B Mills; Kenneth P Nephew; Amit M Oza; Anil K Sood; Euan A Stronach; Henning Walczak; David D Bowtell; Frances R Balkwill
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 60.716

7.  Symptom triggered screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot study of feasibility and acceptability.

Authors:  Barbara A Goff; Kimberly A Lowe; Jeannette C Kane; Marissa D Robertson; Marcia A Gaul; M Robyn Andersen
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Participants' Views of Retention Materials Used in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Shannon M Pretzel; Tara S Andrews; Karen Broski; Jeffery C Childs; Lisa H Gren; Sheryl L Ogden; Jerome Mabie; Brett Thomas; Heather M Rozjabek; Pamela M Marcus
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2015-09-20

9.  Intraperitoneal chemotherapy after interval debulking surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: Feasibility and outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center.

Authors:  Jennifer J Mueller; Amelia Kelly; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Kara Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Oliver Zivanovic; Dennis S Chi; Ginger J Gardner
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Body Powder and Ovarian Cancer Risk-What Is the Role of Recall Bias?

Authors:  Britton Trabert
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.