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

Comprehensive Serum Profiling for the Discovery of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers

FDA-cleared ovarian cancer biomarkers are limited to CA-125 and HE4 for monitoring and recurrence and OVA1, a multivariate panel consisting of CA-125 and four additional biomarkers, for referring patients to a specialist. Due to relatively poor performance of these tests, more accurate and broadly applicable biomarkers are needed. We evaluated the dysregulation of 259 candidate cancer markers in serum samples from 499 patients. Sera were collected prospectively at 11 monitored sites under a single well-defined protocol. All stages of ovarian cancer and common benign gynecological conditions were represented. To ensure consistency and comparability of biomarker comparisons, all measurements were performed on a single platform, at a single site, using a panel of rigorously calibrated, qualified, high-throughput, multiplexed immunoassays and all analyses were conducted using the same software. Each marker was evaluated independently for its ability to differentiate ovarian cancer from benign conditions. A total of 175 markers were dysregulated in the cancer samples. HE4 (AUC = 0.933) and CA-125 (AUC = 0.907) were the most informative biomarkers, followed by IL-2 receptor α, α1-antitrypsin, C-reactive protein, YKL-40, cellular fibronectin, CA-72-4 and prostasin (AUC>0.800). To improve the discrimination between cancer and benign conditions, a simple multivariate combination of markers was explored using logistic regression. When combined into a single panel, the nine most informative individual biomarkers yielded an AUC value of 0.950, significantly higher than obtained when combining the markers in the OVA1 panel (AUC 0.912). Additionally, at a threshold sensitivity of 90%, the combination of the top 9 markers gave 88.9% specificity compared to 63.4% specificity for the OVA1 markers. Although a blinded validation study has not yet been performed, these results indicate that alternative biomarker combinations might lead to significant improvements in the detection of ovarian cancer

The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

Background: To assess the within trial cost-effectiveness of an NHS ovarian cancer screening (OCS) programme using data from UKCTOCS and extrapolate results based on average life expectancy. Methods: Within trial economic evaluation of no screening (C) versus either (1) an annual OCS programme using transvaginal ultrasound (USS) or (2) an annual ovarian cancer multimodal screening programme with serum CA125 interpreted using a risk algorithm (ROCA) and transvaginal ultrasound as a second line test (MMS), plus comparison of lifetime extrapolation of the no screening arm and the MMS programme using both a predictive and a Markov model. Results: Using a CA125-ROCA cost of £20, the within trial results show USS to be strictly dominated by MMS, with the MMS versus C comparison returning an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £91,452 per life year gained (LYG). If the CA125-ROCA unit cost is reduced to £15 the ICER becomes £77,818 per LYG. Predictive extrapolation over the expected lifetime of the UKCTOCS women returns an ICER of £30,033 per LYG, while Markov modelling produces an ICER of £46,922 per QALY. Conclusions: Analysis suggests that, after accounting for the lead-time required to establish full mortality benefits, a national OCS programme based on the MMS strategy quickly approaches the current NICE thresholds for cost-effectiveness when extrapolated out to lifetime as compared to the within trial ICER estimates. Whether MMS could be recommended on economic grounds would depend on the confirmation and size of the mortality benefit at the end of an ongoing follow-up of the UKCTOCS cohort

A Prospective Study of Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy and Longitudinal CA-125 Screening among Women at Increased Genetic Risk of Ovarian Cancer: Design and Baseline Characteristics: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

Women who are genetically predisposed to ovarian cancer are at very high risk of developing this disease. Although risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and various screening regimens are currently recommended to reduce ovarian cancer risk, the optimal management strategy has not been established nor have multiple additional issues been adequately addressed. We developed a collaboration among the Clinical Genetics Branch (National Cancer Institute’s Intramural Research Program), the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG), and the Cancer Genetics Network to address these issues

Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial

Background Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the eff ect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50–74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computergenerated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. Findings Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202 638 women: 50 640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50 639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101 359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202 546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50 624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50 623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101 299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345 570 MMS and 327 775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0–12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0–14 of 15% (95% CI –3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (–7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar fl exible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality eff ect was made up of 8% (–20 to 31) in years 0–7 and 23% (1–46) in years 7–14, and in the USS group, of 2% (–27 to 26) in years 0–7 and 21% (–2 to 42) in years 7–14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly diff erent death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (–2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (–27 to 43) in years 0–7 and 28% (–3 to 49) in years 7–14 in favour of MMS. Interpretation Although the mortality reduction was not signifi cant in the primary analysis, we noted a signifi cant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7–14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-eff ectiveness of ovarian cancer screening

Performance characteristics of the ultrasound strategy during incidence screening in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

Randomised controlled trials of ovarian cancer (OC) screening have not yet demonstrated an impact on disease mortality. Meanwhile, the screening data from clinical trials represents a rich resource to understand the performance of modalities used. We report here on incidence screening in the ultrasound arm of UKCTOCS. 44,799 of the 50,639 women who were randomised to annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound attended annual incidence screening between 28 April 2002 and 31 December 2011. Transvaginal ultrasound was used both as the first and the second line test. Participants were followed up through electronic health record linkage and postal questionnaires. Out of 280,534 annual incidence screens, 960 women underwent screen-positive surgery. 113 had ovarian/tubal cancer (80 invasive epithelial). Of the screen-detected invasive epithelial cancers, 37.5% (95%CI: 26.9–49.0) were Stage I/II. An additional 52 (50 invasive epithelial) were diagnosed within one year of their last screen. Of the 50 interval epithelial cancers, 6.0% (95%CI: 1.3–16.5) were Stage I/II. For detection of all ovarian/tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of screen, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were 68.5% (95%CI: 60.8–75.5), 99.7% (95%CI: 99.7–99.7), and 11.8% (95%CI: 9.8–14) respectively. When the analysis was restricted to invasive epithelial cancers, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 61.5% (95%CI: 52.6–69.9); 99.7% (95%CI: 99.7–99.7) and 8.3% (95%CI: 6.7–10.3), with 12 surgeries per screen positive. The low sensitivity coupled with the advanced stage of interval cancers suggests that ultrasound scanning as the first line test might not be suitable for population screening for ovarian cancer. Trial registration: ISRCTN22488978. Registered on 6 April 2000

Performance characteristics of the ultrasound strategy during incidence screening in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

Randomised controlled trials of ovarian cancer (OC) screening have not yet demonstrated an impact on disease mortality. Meanwhile, the screening data from clinical trials represents a rich resource to understand the performance of modalities used. We report here on incidence screening in the ultrasound arm of UKCTOCS. 44,799 of the 50,639 women who were randomised to annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound attended annual incidence screening between 28 April 2002 and 31 December 2011. Transvaginal ultrasound was used both as the first and the second line test. Participants were followed up through electronic health record linkage and postal questionnaires. Out of 280,534 annual incidence screens, 960 women underwent screen-positive surgery. 113 had ovarian/tubal cancer (80 invasive epithelial). Of the screen-detected invasive epithelial cancers, 37.5% (95%CI: 26.9–49.0) were Stage I/II. An additional 52 (50 invasive epithelial) were diagnosed within one year of their last screen. Of the 50 interval epithelial cancers, 6.0% (95%CI: 1.3–16.5) were Stage I/II. For detection of all ovarian/tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of screen, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were 68.5% (95%CI: 60.8–75.5), 99.7% (95%CI: 99.7–99.7), and 11.8% (95%CI: 9.8–14) respectively. When the analysis was restricted to invasive epithelial cancers, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 61.5% (95%CI: 52.6–69.9); 99.7% (95%CI: 99.7–99.7) and 8.3% (95%CI: 6.7–10.3), with 12 surgeries per screen positive. The low sensitivity coupled with the advanced stage of interval cancers suggests that ultrasound scanning as the first line test might not be suitable for population screening for ovarian cancer. Trial registration: ISRCTN22488978. Registered on 6 April 2000

Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials

Background: Participants in trials evaluating preventive interventions such as screening are on average healthier than the general population. To decrease this 'healthy volunteer effect' (HVE) women were randomly invited from population registers to participate in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) and not allowed to self refer. This report assesses the extent of the HVE still prevalent in UKCTOCS and considers how certain shortfalls in mortality and incidence can be related to differences in socioeconomic status.Methods: Between 2001 and 2005, 202 638 postmenopausal women joined the trial out of 1 243 312 women randomly invited from local health authority registers. The cohort was flagged for deaths and cancer registrations and mean follow up at censoring was 5.55 years for mortality, and 2.58 years for cancer incidence. Overall and cause-specific Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMRs) and Standardised Incidence Ratios (SIRs) were calculated based on national mortality (2005) and cancer incidence (2006) statistics. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2007) was used to assess the link between socioeconomic status and mortality/cancer incidence, and differences between the invited and recruited populations.Results: The SMR for all trial participants was 37%. By subgroup, the SMRs were higher for: younger age groups, extremes of BMI distribution and with each increasing year in trial. There was a clear trend between lower socioeconomic status and increased mortality but less pronounced with incidence. While the invited population had higher mean IMD scores (more deprived) than the national average, those who joined the trial were less deprived.Conclusions: Recruitment to screening trials through invitation from population registers does not prevent a pronounced HVE on mortality. The impact on cancer incidence is much smaller. Similar shortfalls can be expected in other screening RCTs and it maybe prudent to use the various mortality and incidence rates presented as guides for calculating event rates and power in RCTs involving women

Data_from_MacDonald_et_al_Welsh_AES_species_J_Appl_Ecol

These are the data files used in the analysis for the article: Have Welsh agri-environment schemes delivered for focal species? Results from a comprehensive monitoring programme, by MacDonald et al

Recruitment to multicentre trials — lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study

Objective To describe the factors that contributed to successful recruitment of more than 200 000 women to the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest ever randomised controlled trials. Design Descriptive study. Setting 13 NHS trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Participants Postmenopausal women aged 50-74; exclusion criteria included ovarian malignancy, bilateral oophorectomy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, active non-ovarian malignancy, and participation in other ovarian cancer screening trials. Main outcome measures Achievement of target recruitment, acceptance rates of invitation, and recruitment rates. Results The trial was set up in 13 centres with 27 adjoining local health authorities. The coordinating centre team was led by one of the senior investigators, who was closely involved in planning and day to day trial management. Of 1 243 282 women invited, 23.2% (288 955) replied that they were eligible and would like to participate. Of those sent appointments, 73.6% (205 090) attended for recruitment. The acceptance rate varied from 19% to 33% between trial centres. Measures to ensure target recruitment included named coordinating centre staff supporting and monitoring each centre, prompt identification and resolution of logistic problems, varying the volume of invitations by centre, using local nonattendance rates to determine the size of recruitment clinics, and organising large ad hoc clinics supported by coordinating centre staff. The trial randomised 202 638 women in 4.3 years. Conclusions Planning and trial management are as important as trial design and require equal attention from senior investigators. Successful recruitment needs constant monitoring by a committed proactive management team that is willing to explore individual solutions for different centres and use central resources to improve local recruitment. Automation of trial processes with web based trial management systems is crucial in large multicentre randomised controlled trials. Recruitment can be further enhanced by using information videos and group discussions