Intravenous versus subcutaneous drug administration. Which do patients prefer? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) drug delivery is commonly used for its rapid administration and immediate drug effect. Most studies compare IV to subcutaneous (SC) delivery in terms of safety and efficacy, but little is known about what patients prefer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching seven electronic databases for articles published up to February 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or crossover designs investigating patient preference for SC versus IV administration. The risk of bias in the RCTs was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The search identified 115 publications, but few (6/115) met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations and drugs investigated were diverse. Four of six studies demonstrated a clear patient preference for SC administration. Main factors associated with SC preference were time saving and the ability to have treatment at home. Only three studies used study-specific instruments to measure preference. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that patients prefer SC over IV delivery. Patient preference has clearly been neglected in clinical research, but it is important in medical decision making when choosing treatment methods as it has implications for adherence and quality of life. If the safety and efficacy of both administration routes are equivalent, then the most important factor should be patient preference as this will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction. Future drug efficacy and safety studies should include contemporaneous, actual patient preference where possible, utilizing appropriate measures

Sexual functioning in 4,418 postmenopausal women participating in UKCTOCS: a qualitative free-text analysis

Objective: Sexual well-being can contribute significantly to the overall quality of women's lives. This qualitative study aimed to examine sexual activity, functioning, and satisfaction in a large sample of postmenopausal women from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) Methods: Thematic analysis was used to evaluate the free-text data of the Fallowfield Sexual Activity Questionnaire (FSAQ) completed by UKCTOCS participants at baseline before annual screening. Results: A total of 24,305 women completed the baseline FSAQ and 4,525 (19%) provided free-text data, with 4,418 comments eligible for analysis. Median age was 64 years; 65% had a partner and 22.5% were sexually active. Four interrelated themes were derived: partner availability, physical and sexual health, mental well-being, and interpersonal relationships. Primary reason for absence of sexual activity was lack of a partner, mainly due to widowhood (n = 1,000). Women discussed how partner's medical condition (27%) or sexual dysfunction (13.5%), their own physical health (18%) or menopause-related symptoms (12.5%), and prescribed medication (7%) affected sexual activity. Impact of low libido in self (16%) or partner (7%), relationship problems (10.5%) or logistics (6%), and perceptions of ageing (9%) were also mentioned. Few (3%) referred to positive sexual experiences or had sought medical help for sexual problems (6%). Conclusions: This qualitative analysis explored postmenopausal women's perspective on their sexual functioning. Having an intimate partner and good physical health are key factors for continuation of sexual activity and satisfaction. Further sexual education for healthcare professionals is needed to raise awareness about sexuality and sexual difficulties in later life

Mortality impact, risks, and benefits of general population screening for ovarian cancer: the UKCTOCS randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Ovarian and tubal cancers are lethal gynaecological cancers, with over 50% of the patients diagnosed at advanced stage. TRIAL DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial involving 27 primary care trusts adjacent to 13 trial centres based at NHS Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. METHODS: Postmenopausal average-risk women, aged 50-74, with intact ovaries and no previous ovarian or current non-ovarian cancer. INTERVENTIONS: One of two annual screening strategies: (1) multimodal screening (MMS) using a longitudinal CA125 algorithm with repeat CA125 testing and transvaginal scan (TVS) as second line test (2) ultrasound screening (USS) using TVS alone with repeat scan to confirm any abnormality. The control (C) group had no screening. Follow-up was through linkage to national registries, postal follow-up questionnaires and direct communication with trial centres and participants. OBJECTIVE: To assess comprehensively risks and benefits of ovarian cancer screening in the general population. OUTCOME: Primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer as assigned by an independent outcomes review committee. Secondary outcomes included incidence and stage at diagnosis of ovarian and tubal cancer, compliance, performance characteristics, harms and cost-effectiveness of the two screening strategies and a bioresource for future research. RANDOMISATION: The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to MMS, USS and C groups in a 1:1:2 ratio. BLINDING: Investigators and participants were unblinded and outcomes review committee was masked to randomisation group. ANALYSES: Primary analyses were by intention to screen, comparing separately MMS and USS with C using the Versatile test. RESULTS: 1,243,282 women were invited and 205,090 attended for recruitment between April 2001 and September 2005. RANDOMISED: 202,638 women: 50,640 MMS, 50,639 USS and 101,359 C group. NUMBERS ANALYSED FOR PRIMARY OUTCOME: 202,562 (>99.9%): 50,625 (>99.9%) MMS, 50,623 (>99.9%) USS, and 101,314 (>99.9%) C group. OUTCOME: Women in MMS and USS groups underwent 345,570 and 327,775 annual screens between randomisation and 31 December 2011. At median follow-up of 16.3 (IQR 15.1-17.3) years, 2055 women developed ovarian or tubal cancer: 522 (1.0% of 50,625) MMS, 517 (1.0% of 50,623) USS, and 1016 (1.0% of 101314) in C group. Compared to the C group, in the MMS group, the incidence of Stage I/II disease was 39.2% (95% CI 16.1 to 66.9) higher and stage III/IV 10.2% (95% CI -21.3 to 2.4) lower. There was no difference in stage in the USS group. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0.6%) MMS, 291 (0.6%) USS, and 619 (0.6%) C group. There was no significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths in either MMS (p = 0.580) or USS (p = 0.360) groups compared to the C group. Overall compliance with annual screening episode was 80.8% (345,570/420,047) in the MMS and 78.0% (327,775/420,047) in the USS group. For ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the last test in a screening episode, in the MMS group, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 83.8% (95% CI 78.7 to 88.1), 99.8% (95% CI 99.8 to 99.9), and 28.8% (95% CI 25.5 to 32.2) and in the USS group, 72.2% (95% CI 65.9 to 78.0), 99.5% (95% CI 99.5 to 99.5), and 9.1% (95% CI 7.8 to 10.5) respectively. The final within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was not undertaken as there was no mortality reduction. A bioresource (UKCTOCS Longitudinal Women's Cohort) of longitudinal outcome data and over 0.5 million serum samples including serial annual samples in women in the MMS group was established and to date has been used in many new studies, mainly focused on early detection of cancer. HARMS: Both screening tests (venepuncture and TVS) were associated with minor complications with low (8.6/100,000 screens MMS; 18.6/100,000 screens USS) complication rates. Screening itself did not cause anxiety unless more intense repeat testing was required following abnormal screens. In the MMS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 2.3 (489 false positives; 212 cancers) women in the MMS group had unnecessary false-positive (benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa) surgery. Overall, 14 (489/345,572 annual screens) underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. In the USS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 10 (1630 false positives; 164 cancers) underwent unnecessary false-positive surgery. Overall, 50 (1630/327,775 annual screens) women underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening for ovarian and tubal cancer for average-risk women using these strategies should not be undertaken. Decreased incidence of Stage III/IV cancers during multimodal screening did not translate to mortality reduction. Researchers should be cautious about using early stage as a surrogate outcome in screening trials. Meanwhile the bioresource provides a unique opportunity to evaluate early cancer detection tests. FUNDING: Long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015-2020) - National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-2014) - Medical Research Council (MRC) (G9901012/G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MR_UU_12023)

Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials

ABSTRACT: Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer. FUTURE WORK: There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. FUNDING: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care

Tumour stage, treatment, and survival of women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer in UKCTOCS: an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy.// Methods: UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50–74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032.// Findings: 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04–13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4–13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6–26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5–17·4]).// Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer

Tumour stage, treatment, and survival of women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer in UKCTOCS: an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy. Methods: UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50–74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. Findings: 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04–13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4–13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6–26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5–17·4]). Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer. Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, The Eve Appeal

Risk algorithm using serial biomarker measurements doubles the number of screen-detected cancers compared with a single-threshold rule in the United Kingdom collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening

PURPOSE: Cancer screening strategies have commonly adopted single-biomarker thresholds to identify abnormality. We investigated the impact of serial biomarker change interpreted through a risk algorithm on cancer detection rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, 46,237 women, age 50 years or older underwent incidence screening by using the multimodal strategy (MMS) in which annual serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) was interpreted with the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA). Women were triaged by the ROCA: normal risk, returned to annual screening; intermediate risk, repeat CA-125; and elevated risk, repeat CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound. Women with persistently increased risk were clinically evaluated. All participants were followed through national cancer and/or death registries. Performance characteristics of a single-threshold rule and the ROCA were compared by using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: After 296,911 women-years of annual incidence screening, 640 women underwent surgery. Of those, 133 had primary invasive epithelial ovarian or tubal cancers (iEOCs). In all, 22 interval iEOCs occurred within 1 year of screening, of which one was detected by ROCA but was managed conservatively after clinical assessment. The sensitivity and specificity of MMS for detection of iEOCs were 85.8% (95% CI, 79.3% to 90.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.8% to 99.8%), respectively, with 4.8 surgeries per iEOC. ROCA alone detected 87.1% (135 of 155) of the iEOCs. Using fixed CA-125 cutoffs at the last annual screen of more than 35, more than 30, and more than 22 U/mL would have identified 41.3% (64 of 155), 48.4% (75 of 155), and 66.5% (103 of 155), respectively. The area under the curve for ROCA (0.915) was significantly (P = .0027) higher than that for a single-threshold rule (0.869). CONCLUSION: Screening by using ROCA doubled the number of screen-detected iEOCs compared with a fixed cutoff. In the context of cancer screening, reliance on predefined single-threshold rules may result in biomarkers of value being discarded

Ovarian cancer symptoms, routes to diagnosis and survival – population cohort study in the ‘no screen’ arm of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

Objective: There are widespread efforts to increase symptom awareness of ‘pelvic/abdominal pain, increased abdominal size/bloating, difficulty eating/feeling full and urinary frequency/urgency’ in an attempt to diagnose ovarian cancer earlier. Long-term survival of women with these symptoms adjusted for known prognostic factors is yet to be determined. This study explored the association of symptoms, routes and interval to diagnosis and long-term survival in a population-based cohort of postmenopausal women diagnosed with invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (iEOC) in the ‘no screen’ (control) UKCTOCS arm. Methods: Of 101,299 women in the control arm, 574 were confirmed on outcome review to have iEOC between randomisation (2001–2005) and 31 December 2014. Data was extracted from medical notes and electronic records. A multivariable model was fitted for individual symptoms, time interval from symptom onset to diagnosis, route to diagnosis, speciality, morphological Type, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis (period effect), stage, primary treatment, and residual disease. Results: Women presenting with symptoms listed in the NICE guidelines (HR1.48, 95%CI1.16–1.89, p = 0.001) or the modified Goff Index (HR1·68, 95%CI1·32–2.13, p < 0.0001) had significantly worse survival than those who did not. Each additional presenting symptom decreased survival (HR1·20, 95%CI1·12–1·28, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, in addition to advanced stage, increasing residual disease and inadequate primary treatment, abdominal pain and loss of appetite/feeling full were significantly associated with increased mortality. Conclusions: The ovarian cancer symptom indices identify postmenopausal women with a poorer prognosis. This study however cannot exclude the possibility of better outcomes in those who are aware and act on their symptoms

Mortality impact, risks, and benefits of general population screening for ovarian cancer: the UKCTOCS randomised controlled trial

Background Ovarian and tubal cancers are lethal gynaecological cancers, with over 50% of the patients diagnosed at advanced stage. Trial design Randomised controlled trial involving 27 primary care trusts adjacent to 13 trial centres based at NHS Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Methods Participants Postmenopausal average-risk women, aged 50–74, with intact ovaries and no previous ovarian or current non-ovarian cancer. Interventions One of two annual screening strategies: (1) multimodal screening (MMS) using a longitudinal CA125 algorithm with repeat CA125 testing and transvaginal scan (TVS) as second line test (2) ultrasound screening (USS) using TVS alone with repeat scan to confirm any abnormality. The control (C) group had no screening. Follow-up was through linkage to national registries, postal follow-up questionnaires and direct communication with trial centres and participants. Objective To assess comprehensively risks and benefits of ovarian cancer screening in the general population. Outcome Primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer as assigned by an independent outcomes review committee. Secondary outcomes included incidence and stage at diagnosis of ovarian and tubal cancer, compliance, performance characteristics, harms and cost-effectiveness of the two screening strategies and a bioresource for future research. Randomisation The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to MMS, USS and C groups in a 1:1:2 ratio. Blinding Investigators and participants were unblinded and outcomes review committee was masked to randomisation group. Analyses Primary analyses were by intention to screen, comparing separately MMS and USS with C using the Versatile test. Results Recruitment 1,243,282 women were invited and 205,090 attended for recruitment between April 2001 and September 2005. Randomised 202,638 women: 50,640 MMS, 50,639 USS and 101,359 C group. Numbers analysed for primary outcome 202,562 (>99.9%): 50,625 (>99.9%) MMS, 50,623 (>99.9%) USS, and 101,314 (>99.9%) C group. Outcome Women in MMS and USS groups underwent 345,570 and 327,775 annual screens between randomisation and 31 December 2011. At median follow-up of 16.3 (IQR 15.1–17.3) years, 2055 women developed ovarian or tubal cancer: 522 (1.0% of 50,625) MMS, 517 (1.0% of 50,623) USS, and 1016 (1.0% of 101314) in C group. Compared to the C group, in the MMS group, the incidence of Stage I/II disease was 39.2% (95% CI 16.1 to 66.9) higher and stage III/IV 10.2% (95% CI –21.3 to 2.4) lower. There was no difference in stage in the USS group. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0.6%) MMS, 291 (0.6%) USS, and 619 (0.6%) C group. There was no significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths in either MMS (p = 0.580) or USS (p = 0.360) groups compared to the C group. Overall compliance with annual screening episode was 80.8% (345,570/420,047) in the MMS and 78.0% (327,775/420,047) in the USS group. For ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the last test in a screening episode, in the MMS group, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 83.8% (95% CI 78.7 to 88.1), 99.8% (95% CI 99.8 to 99.9), and 28.8% (95% CI 25.5 to 32.2) and in the USS group, 72.2% (95% CI 65.9 to 78.0), 99.5% (95% CI 99.5 to 99.5), and 9.1% (95% CI 7.8 to 10.5) respectively. The final within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was not undertaken as there was no mortality reduction. A bioresource (UKCTOCS Longitudinal Women’s Cohort) of longitudinal outcome data and over 0.5 million serum samples including serial annual samples in women in the MMS group was established and to date has been used in many new studies, mainly focused on early detection of cancer. Harms Both screening tests (venepuncture and TVS) were associated with minor complications with low (8.6/100,000 screens MMS; 18.6/100,000 screens USS) complication rates. Screening itself did not cause anxiety unless more intense repeat testing was required following abnormal screens. In the MMS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 2.3 (489 false positives; 212 cancers) women in the MMS group had unnecessary false-positive (benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa) surgery. Overall, 14 (489/345,572 annual screens) underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. In the USS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 10 (1630 false positives; 164 cancers) underwent unnecessary false-positive surgery. Overall, 50 (1630/327,775 annual screens) women underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. Conclusions Population screening for ovarian and tubal cancer for average-risk women using these strategies should not be undertaken. Decreased incidence of Stage III/IV cancers during multimodal screening did not translate to mortality reduction. Researchers should be cautious about using early stage as a surrogate outcome in screening trials. Meanwhile the bioresource provides a unique opportunity to evaluate early cancer detection tests

Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations about endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor (HR) -positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of evidence from 2008 through 2015 to create recommendations informed by that evidence. Outcomes of interest included sequencing of hormonal agents, hormonal agents compared with chemotherapy, targeted biologic therapy, and treatment of premenopausal women. This guideline puts forth recommendations for endocrine therapy as treatment for women with HR-positive MBC. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sequential hormone therapy is the preferential treatment for most women with HR-positive MBC. Except in cases of immediately life-threatening disease, hormone therapy, alone or in combination, should be used as initial treatment. Patients whose tumors express any level of hormone receptors should be offered hormone therapy. Treatment recommendations should be based on type of adjuvant treatment, disease-free interval, and organ function. Tumor markers should not be the sole criteria for determining tumor progression; use of additional biomarkers remains experimental. Assessment of menopausal status is critical; ovarian suppression or ablation should be included in premenopausal women. For postmenopausal women, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the preferred first-line endocrine therapy, with or without the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor palbociclib. As second-line therapy, fulvestrant should be administered at 500 mg with a loading schedule and may be administered with palbociclib. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postmenopausal women with MBC whose disease progresses while receiving nonsteroidal AIs. Among patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeted therapy plus an AI can be effective for those who are not chemotherapy candidates