PURPOSE: Our goal was to determine if symptom-based ovarian cancer screening was feasible in a primary care clinic and acceptable to women and practitioners. In addition, we wanted to describe the outcomes for a pilot group of screened women. METHODS: A prospective study of 2262 women over age 40 with at least one ovary participated in symptom-based screening using a symptom index (SI). The first 1001 were in a non-intervention study arm and 1261 were screened for symptoms and referred on to testing with CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) if the SI result was positive. Patients and practitioners were surveyed about acceptability of study procedures. All patients were linked to the Western Washington SEER Cancer Registry to determine if ovarian cancer was diagnosed in any women. RESULTS: Of the eligible women visiting the clinic, 72.5% were interested in participating, and the participation rate was 62.1%. Of the 1261 who participated in the screening arm 51 (4%) were SI positive and 47 participated in CA125 (45/47 normal) and TVS (32/47 normal). Two endometrial biopsies and one hysteroscopy D&C were performed secondary to study enrollment (pathology negative). No laparotomies or laparoscopies were performed secondary to study involvement. A survey of patient acceptability, on a scale of 1-5, revealed a mean score of 4.8 for the acceptability of SI screening and 4.7 for TVS and CA125 testing among SI positive women. Providers also rated the SI procedures highly acceptable with a mean score of 4.8. Two participating patients were diagnosed with ovarian cancer; one had a true positive SI in the non-intervention arm and one had a false negative SI in the screened arm. CONCLUSION: While our pilot study is not large enough to assess sensitivity or specificity of a symptom-based screening approach, we did find that this type of screening was feasible and acceptable at the time of a primary care visit and referred approximately 4% of women for additional diagnostic testing. Symptom-based screening also resulted in minimal additional procedures.
PURPOSE: Our goal was to determine if symptom-based ovarian cancer screening was feasible in a primary care clinic and acceptable to women and practitioners. In addition, we wanted to describe the outcomes for a pilot group of screened women. METHODS: A prospective study of 2262 women over age 40 with at least one ovary participated in symptom-based screening using a symptom index (SI). The first 1001 were in a non-intervention study arm and 1261 were screened for symptoms and referred on to testing with CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) if the SI result was positive. Patients and practitioners were surveyed about acceptability of study procedures. All patients were linked to the Western Washington SEER Cancer Registry to determine if ovarian cancer was diagnosed in any women. RESULTS: Of the eligible women visiting the clinic, 72.5% were interested in participating, and the participation rate was 62.1%. Of the 1261 who participated in the screening arm 51 (4%) were SI positive and 47 participated in CA125 (45/47 normal) and TVS (32/47 normal). Two endometrial biopsies and one hysteroscopy D&C were performed secondary to study enrollment (pathology negative). No laparotomies or laparoscopies were performed secondary to study involvement. A survey of patient acceptability, on a scale of 1-5, revealed a mean score of 4.8 for the acceptability of SI screening and 4.7 for TVS and CA125 testing among SI positive women. Providers also rated the SI procedures highly acceptable with a mean score of 4.8. Two participating patients were diagnosed with ovarian cancer; one had a true positive SI in the non-intervention arm and one had a false negative SI in the screened arm. CONCLUSION: While our pilot study is not large enough to assess sensitivity or specificity of a symptom-based screening approach, we did find that this type of screening was feasible and acceptable at the time of a primary care visit and referred approximately 4% of women for additional diagnostic testing. Symptom-based screening also resulted in minimal additional procedures.
Authors: Lloyd H Smith; Cyllene R Morris; Shagufta Yasmeen; Arti Parikh-Patel; Rosemary D Cress; Patrick S Romano Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Barbara A Goff; Lynn S Mandel; Charles W Drescher; Nicole Urban; Shirley Gough; Kristi M Schurman; Joshua Patras; Barry S Mahony; M Robyn Andersen Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Kimberly A Lowe; M Robyn Andersen; Nicole Urban; Pamela Paley; Charles W Dresher; Barbara A Goff Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: M Robyn Andersen; Barbara A Goff; Kimberly A Lowe; Nathalie Scholler; Lindsay Bergan; Charles W Dresher; Pamela Paley; Nicole Urban Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John K Chan; Chunqiao Tian; Joshua P Kesterson; Bradley J Monk; Daniel S Kapp; Brittany Davidson; Sharon Robertson; Larry J Copeland; Joan L Walker; Robert M Wenham; Yovanni Casablanca; Nick M Spirtos; Krishnansu S Tewari; Jeffrey G Bell Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Laura L Holman; Karen H Lu; Robert C Bast; Mary A Hernandez; Diane C Bodurka; Steven Skates; Charlotte C Sun Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-11-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Janusz Menkiszak; Anita Chudecka-Głaz; Jacek Gronwald; Aneta Cymbaluk-Płoska; Aleksander Celewicz; Maria Świniarska; Małgorzata Wężowska; Ryszard Bedner; Dorota Zielińska; Paulina Tarnowska; Jerzy Jakubowicz; Zbigniew Kojs Journal: J Ovarian Res Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 4.234
Authors: Beata Modzelewska; Maciej Jóźwik; Marcin Jóźwik; Stanisław Sulkowski; Anna Pędzińska-Betiuk; Tomasz Kleszczewski; Anna Kostrzewska Journal: J Physiol Sci Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: Janusz Menkiszak; Anita Chudecka-Głaz; Aneta Cymbaluk-Płoska; Aleksander Celewicz; Zbigniew Kojs; Mariusz Szajda; Maria Świniarska; Ryszard Bedner; Anna Jurczak; Marta Celewicz; Monika Cieszyńska; Jan Lubiński; Jacek Gronwald Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 2.857
Authors: Garth Funston; Victoria Hardy; Gary Abel; Emma J Crosbie; Jon Emery; Willie Hamilton; Fiona M Walter Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Marie-Louise Ladegaard Baun; Margit Dueholm; Hanne Nørgaard Heje; William Hamilton; Lone Kjeld Petersen; Peter Vedsted Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 2.581