Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2023 May 11:1–81. doi: 10.3310/BHBR5832

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

Usha Menon, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Matthew Burnell, Andy Ryan, Jatinderpal K Kalsi, Naveena Singh, Anne Dawnay, Lesley Fallowfield, Alistair J McGuire, Stuart Campbell, Steven J Skates, Mahesh Parmar, Ian J Jacobs
PMCID: PMC10542866  PMID: 37183782

Abstract

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).

Plain language summary

TEXT

Most women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed after the disease has spread widely (advanced stage – III and IV) and more than half die within 5 years. We wanted to find out if testing women without symptoms could pick up ovarian cancer at an earlier stage before it has spread beyond the ovaries and tubes and reduce deaths. We also wanted to assess the risks and benefits of such screening.

TEXT

We invited over 1.2 million women living near 13 centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of them, 202,638 joined the trial. All women were between 50 and 74 and were no longer having periods. They had never been diagnosed with ovarian cancer or were not having treatment for any other cancer. They did not have many relatives with ovarian or breast cancer. The volunteers were placed into one of three groups at random.

LIST

1. The blood test group contained 50,640 women who had yearly CA125 blood tests. If these showed a moderate or high chance of ovarian cancer, they had repeat CA125 tests and a scan.

LIST

2. The scan group contained 50,639 women who had yearly internal scans of their ovaries and tubes which were repeated if they showed an abnormality.

LIST

3. The no-screening group contained 101,359 women.

TEXT

Those in the blood and scan groups had screening every year until December 2011. We sent all women health questionnaires and also, with their permission, received information about them from the national cancer and death registries till mid-2020.

TEXT

Women in the screened groups had an average of eight years of screening. We followed them for approximately 16 years after they had joined the trial. During this period, 2055 women were diagnosed with ovarian and tubal cancer. It was about 1 in 100 women (1%) in all three groups.

LIST

• 522 of 50,625 in the blood group.

LIST

• 517 of 50,623 in the scan group.

LIST

• 1016 of 101,314 in the no-screening group.

TEXT

More women were diagnosed with early-stage cancer and fewer were diagnosed with advanced cancer in the blood group compared to the no-screening group. There was no difference in the number diagnosed with early or advanced disease between the scan and no-screening group. Despite this difference, the number of women in each group who died from ovarian and tubal cancer was similar in all three groups: 296 of 50,625 (0.6%) in the blood group, 291 of 50,623 (0.6%) in the scan group and 619 of 101,314 (0.6%) in the no-screening group. Other results showed.

LIST

• Overall, 81% women in the blood group and 78% in the scan group attended all of their annual screening appointments.

LIST

• In the blood group, screening detected 84% of ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the test and correctly classified as normal 99.8% of women who did not have ovarian and tubal cancer.

LIST

• In the scan group, screening detected 72% of ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the last test and correctly classified 99.5% of those who did not have ovarian and tubal cancer.

LIST

• Both screening tests were associated with minor complications.

LIST

• While screening did not increase anxiety, there was slightly increased worry in women who were asked to return for more intense repeat testing.

LIST

• Both screening methods picked up changes that were in fact not ovarian cancer. This meant that women had unnecessary surgery together with the worry and risk of complications that go with it.

LIST

◦ In the blood group 14 women had unnecessary surgery for every 10,000 women screened annually. This means that for each woman found to have ovarian cancer, an additional 2 women had unnecessary surgery.

LIST

◦ In the scan group 50 women had unnecessary surgery for every 10,000 women screened annually. This means that for each woman found to have ovarian cancer, an additional 10 women had unnecessary surgery.

LIST

• A biobank with all the donated data and over 0.5 million serum samples, including yearly samples from women in the blood group, was built and continues to be used in many new studies, mainly focused on early detection of cancer.

TEXT

Screening using the CA125 blood test or transvaginal ultrasound scan to test for ovarian cancer did not save lives. Additionally, it was associated with some harm. Therefore, an ovarian cancer screening programme for most women cannot be currently recommended. The trial also showed for the first time that ovarian cancer can be detected earlier through screening. However, for screening to save lives, the test needs to pick up many more women earlier in the course of the disease so that available treatments are effective. The biobank provides an opportunity for scientists to see if newer tests for cancer can detect the disease earlier.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. CRUK. Ovarian Cancer Statistics: Ovarian Cancer Mortality. 2018 [25/08/2021]. Available from: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/ovarian-cancer#heading-One.
  2. CRUK. Ovarian Cancer Statistics: Ovarian Cancer Survival by Stage at Diagnosis. 2018 [25/08/2021]. Available from: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/ovarian-cancer/survival#heading-Three.
  3. Coleman MP, Forman D, Bryant H, Butler J, Rachet B, Maringe C, et al. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995-2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet 2011;377(9760):127–38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62231-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. CRUK. International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP). 2021 [25/08/2021]. Available from: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/data-and-statistics/international-cancer-benchmarking-partnership-icbp.
  5. Richards MA. The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative in England: assembling the evidence. Br J Cancer 2009;101(Suppl. 2):S1–4. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. CRUK. Be Clear on Cancer. 2021 [21/12/2021]. Available from: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/awareness-and-prevention/be-clear-on-cancer.
  7. NHSx. NHS to Pilot Potentially Revolutionary Blood Test that Detects More Than 50 Cancers. 2021 [25/08/2021]. Available from: www.england.nhs.uk/2020/11/nhs-to-pilot-potentially-revolutionary-blood-test/.
  8. TOC. Target Ovarian Cancer: Symptoms. 2021 [25/08/2021]. Available from: https://targetovariancancer.org.uk/about-ovarian-cancer/symptoms.
  9. TEA. The Eve Appeal: Ovarian Cancer. 2021 [25/08/2021]. Available from: https://eveappeal.org.uk/gynaecological-cancers/ovarian-cancer/.
  10. OCA. Ovarian Cancer Action: Ovarian Cancer Symptoms. 2021 [25/08/2021]. Available from: https://ovarian.org.uk/ovarian-cancer/ovarian-cancer-symptoms/.
  11. WOCC. World Ovarian Cancer Coalition: Symptoms & Risks. 2021 [25/08/2021]. Available from: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-ovarian-cancer/symptoms-risk-factors/signs-symptoms/.
  12. Bast RC, Jr, Feeney M, Lazarus H, Nadler LM, Colvin RB, Knapp RC. Reactivity of a monoclonal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Invest 1981;68(5):1331–7. doi: 10.1172/JCI110380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Campbell S, Goessens L, Goswamy R, Whitehead M. Real-time ultrasonography for determination of ovarian morphology and volume. A possible early screening test for ovarian cancer? Lancet 1982;1(8269):425–6. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(82)91622-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Einhorn N, Sjovall K, Knapp RC, Hall P, Scully RE, Bast RC, Jr, et al. Prospective evaluation of serum CA 125 levels for early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80(1):14–8. [PubMed]
  15. Einhorn N, Bast R, Knapp R, Nilsson B, Zurawski V, Jr, Sjovall K. Long-term follow-up of the Stockholm screening study on ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79(3):466–70. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5983. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Campbell S, Bhan V, Royston P, Whitehead MI, Collins WP. Transabdominal ultrasound screening for early ovarian cancer. BMJ 1989;299(6712):1363–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6712.1363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Jacobs I, Stabile I, Bridges J, Kemsley P, Reynolds C, Grudzinskas J, et al. Multimodal approach to screening for ovarian cancer. Lancet 1988;1(8580):268–71. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)90351-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Jacobs I, Davies AP, Bridges J, Stabile I, Fay T, Lower A, et al. Prevalence screening for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women by CA 125 measurement and ultrasonography. BMJ 1993;306(6884):1030–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6884.1030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Jacobs IJ, Skates SJ, MacDonald N, Menon U, Rosenthal AN, Davies AP, et al. Screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999;353(9160):1207–10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10261-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Kobayashi H, Ooi H, Yamada Y, Sakata M, Kawaguchi R, Kanayama S, et al. Serum CA125 level before the development of ovarian cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;99(2):95–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, Lamerato L, Isaacs C, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2011;305(22):2295–303. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.766. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. UK-OCSP. Ovarian Cancer Screening Program - Markey Cancer Centre. 2021 [30/6/2022]. Available from: https://ukhealthcare.uky.edu/markey-cancer-center/patient-care/cancer-screening-program/ovarian.
  23. van Nagell JR Jr, DePriest PD, Ueland FR, DeSimone CP, Cooper AL, McDonald JM, et al. Ovarian cancer screening with annual transvaginal sonography: findings of 25,000 women screened. Cancer 2007;109(9):1887–96. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22594. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Jacobs IJ, Skates S, Davies AP, Woolas RP, Jeyerajah A, Weidemann P, et al. Risk of diagnosis of ovarian cancer after raised serum CA 125 concentration: a prospective cohort study. BMJ 1996;313(7069):1355–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Skates SJ, Pauler DK, Jacobs IJ. Screening based on the risk of cancer calculation from bayesian hierarchical changepoint and mixture models of longitudinal markers. J Am Stat Assoc 2001;96(454):429–39.
  26. Menon U, Skates SJ, Lewis S, Rosenthal AN, Rufford B, Sibley K, et al. Prospective study using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm to screen for ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(31):7919–26. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.6642. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. UKLWC. UKCTOCS Longitudinal Women’s Cohort [26/08/2021]. Available from: http://uklwc.mrcctu.ucl.ac.uk/.
  28. Biocentre U. UK Biocentre: The National Biosample Centre [26/08/2021]. Available from: www.ukbiocentre.com/.
  29. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Sharma A, Burnell M, Hallett R, et al. Recruitment to multicentre trials – lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study. BMJ 2008;337:a2079. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Barrett J, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Menon U, Jacobs I, Kilkerr J, et al. Psychological morbidity associated with ovarian cancer screening: results from more than 23,000 women in the randomised trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). BJOG 2014;121(9):1071–9. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12870. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Kalsi J, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Singh N, Burnell M, Massingham S, et al. Performance characteristics of the ultrasound strategy during incidence screening in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(4):858. doi: 10.3390/cancers13040858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Sharma A, Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Campbell S, Amso NN, Seif MW, et al. Quality assurance and its impact on ovarian visualization rates in the multicenter United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47(2):228–35. doi: 10.1002/uog.14929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Kalsi JK, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Margolin-Crump D, Singh N, Burnell M, et al. Completeness and accuracy of national cancer and death registration for outcome ascertainment in trials-an ovarian cancer exemplar. Trials 2021;22(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04968-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. UKCTOCS. Protocol for the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) and the Long Term Impact of Screening on Ovarian Cancer Mortality (LTFU UKCTOCS). 2020 [01/07/2022]. Available from: http://ukctocs.mrcctu.ucl.ac.uk/media/1066/ukctocs-protocol_v90_19feb2020.pdf.
  35. Daya D, Cheung AN, Khunamornpong S. Tumors of the peritoneum: epithelial tumors of Müllerian type. In Kurman RJCM, Herrington CS, Young RH, editors. WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs. 4th edn. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. pp. 92–3.
  36. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours: Pathology and Genetics. Lyon: World Health Organization; 2003.
  37. EuroQol. EQ-5D-5L 2021 [01/07/2022]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/.
  38. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387(10022):945–56. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Apostolidou S, Habib M, Kalsi J, et al. Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials. Trials 2011;12:61. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 2009;10(4):327–40. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Menon U, Ryan A, Kalsi J, Gentry-Maharaj A, Dawnay A, Habib M, et al. 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. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(18):2062–71. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.4945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Apostolidou S, Habib M, Kalsi J, et al. Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials. Trials 2011;12:61. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260(3):658–63. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110469. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Parkin DM, Kralj-Hans I, MacRae E, Shah U, et al. Long term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 17 years of follow-up: the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;389(10076):1299–311. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30396-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014;384(9959):2027–35. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  46. Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernan MA, Aas E, et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312(6):606–15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Menon U, McGuire AJ, Raikou M, Ryan A, Davies SK, Burnell M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Br J Cancer 2017;117(5):619–27. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. Prat J, Oncology FCoG. Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: abridged republication of guidelines from the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). Obstet Gynecol 2015;126(1):171–4. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000917. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Skates SJ, Ryan A, Karpinskyj C, Kalsi J, et al. UKCTOCS update: applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis. Trials 2021;22(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05125-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. Karrison TG. Versatile tests for comparing survival curves based on weighted log-rank statistics. Stata J 2016;16(3):678–90.
  51. Royston P, Parmar MK. Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med 2002;21(15):2175–97. doi: 10.1002/sim.1203. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Kearns B, Chilcott J, Whyte S, Preston L, Sadler S. Cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer amongst postmenopausal women: a model-based economic evaluation. BMC Med 2016;14(1):200. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0743-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Singh N, Ryan A, Karpinskyj C, et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397(10290):2182–93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00731-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Spielberger C, Gorsuch R, Lushene RE, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y1–Y2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press; 1983.
  55. Goldberg D. Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1978.
  56. Gentry-Maharaj A, Glazer C, Burnell M, Ryan A, Berry H, Kalsi J, et al. Changing trends in reproductive/lifestyle factors in UK women: descriptive study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). BMJ Open 2017;7(3):e011822. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. NCS. UK National Screening Committee: criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme 2015 [21/12/2021].
  58. ACOG. Summary: opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. Am Coll Obstet Gynecol 2019;133(4):842. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003165. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Hanley GE, Rozenberg NMK, McAlpine JN. Risk-reducing surgery in women at low lifetime risk of developing ovarian carcinoma: opportunistic salpingectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017;60(4):758–70. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000315. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Powell CB, Alabaster A, Simmons S, Garcia C, Martin M, McBride-Allen S, et al. Salpingectomy for sterilization: change in practice in a large integrated health care system, 2011–2016. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130(5):961–7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002312. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Gaba F, Robbani S, Singh N, McCluggage WG, Wilkinson N, Ganesan R, et al. Preventing Ovarian Cancer through early Excision of Tubes and late Ovarian Removal (PROTECTOR): protocol for a prospective non-randomised multi-center trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31(2):286–91. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. Gaba F, Goyal S, Marks D, Chandrasekaran D, Evans O, Robbani S, et al. Surgical decision making in premenopausal BRCA carriers considering risk-reducing early salpingectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy: a qualitative study. J Med Genet 2022;59(2):122–32. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  63. Steenbeek MP, Harmsen MG, Hoogerbrugge N, de Jong MA, Maas A, Prins JB, et al. Association of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy versus salpingo-oophorectomy with quality of life in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers: a nonrandomized controlled trial. JAMA Oncol 2021;7(8):1203–12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.1590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. UKCTOCS I. A Tale of Two Cards (Presented at the EGA Institute for Women’s Health UCL Annual Meeting). 2012 [14/07/2022]. Available from: www.ucl.ac.uk/womens-health/.
  65. UKNEQAS. Tumour Markers (CA Series). 2021 [20/12/2021]. Available from: https://ukneqas.org.uk/programmes/result/?programme=tumour-markers-%28ca-series%29.
  66. UKAS. What is accreditation? 2021 [cited 13/07/2022].
  67. Stott W, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Amso N, Seif M, Jones C, et al. Audit of transvaginal sonography of normal postmenopausal ovaries by sonographers from the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). F1000Res 2018;7:1241. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15663.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. Collins RE, Lopez LM, Marteau TM. Emotional impact of screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2011;11:603. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Duffy SW, Vulkan D, Cuckle H, Parmar D, Sheikh S, Smith RA, et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial): final results of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21(9):1165–72. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30398-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. Partridge E, Kreimer AR, Greenlee RT, Williams C, Xu JL, Church TR, et al. Results from four rounds of ovarian cancer screening in a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(4):775–82. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819cda77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. Pinsky PF, Blacka A, Kramer BS, Miller A, Prorok PC, Berg C. Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Clin Trials 2010;7(4):303–11. doi: 10.1177/1740774510374091. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. NICE. Ovarian Cancer: Recognition and Initial Management Clinical Guideline [CG122]. 2011 [20/12/2021]. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg122.
  73. Lennon AM, Buchanan AH, Kinde I, Warren A, Honushefsky A, Cohain AT, et al. Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention. Science 2020;369(6499). doi: 10.1126/science.abb9601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Klein EA, Richards D, Cohn A, Tummala M, Lapham R, Cosgrove D, et al. Clinical validation of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test using an independent validation set. Ann Oncol 2021;32(9):1167–77. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.806. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Kandimalla R, Wang W, Yu F, Zhou N, Gao F, Spillman M, et al. OCaMIR-A noninvasive, diagnostic signature for early-stage ovarian cancer: a multi-cohort retrospective and prospective study. Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(15):4277–86. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  76. Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T, Sakata M, Yoshida S, Kawaguchi R, et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008;18(3):414–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01035.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Blyuss O, Burnell M, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Marino IP, Kalsi J, et al. Comparison of longitudinal CA125 algorithms as a first-line screen for ovarian cancer in the general population. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24(19):4726–33. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  78. Manchanda R, Abdelraheim A, Johnson M, Rosenthal AN, Benjamin E, Brunell C, et al. Outcome of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA carriers and women of unknown mutation status. BJOG 2011;118(7):814–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02920.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. NHSOFH. Let’s Prevent Disease Together. 2021 [20/12/2021]. Available from: https://ourfuturehealth.org.uk/.
  80. Levanon K, Crum C, Drapkin R. New insights into the pathogenesis of serous ovarian cancer and its clinical impact. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(32):5284–93. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  81. Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M. Molecular pathogenesis and extraovarian origin of epithelial ovarian cancer–shifting the paradigm. Hum Pathol 2011;42(7):918–31. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2011.03.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  82. Brown PO, Palmer C. The preclinical natural history of serous ovarian cancer: defining the target for early detection. PLOS Med 2009;6(7):e1000114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  83. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Burnell M, Dawnay A, Habib M, et al. Serial CA125 Interpreted Using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm Can Detect Ovarian Cancer in Absence of Ultrasound Abnormalities London. Innovations & Progress in Healthcare for Women, 2nd International Meeting: Prevention, Screening and Risk Prediction in Women’s Health 2009, London, 9–11 November 2009.
  84. Widschwendter M, Zikan M, Wahl B, Lempiainen H, Paprotka T, Evans I, et al. The potential of circulating tumor DNA methylation analysis for the early detection and management of ovarian cancer. Genome Med 2017;9(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s13073-017-0500-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. ESMO minimum clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 2001;12(9):1205–7. [PubMed]
  86. Aebi S, Castiglione M, Group EGW. Epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2008;19(Suppl. 2):ii14–6. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn073. [DOI] [PubMed]
  87. Colombo N, Peiretti M, Parma G, Lapresa M, Mancari R, Carinelli S, et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010;21(Suppl. 5):v23–30. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq244. [DOI] [PubMed]
  88. Chandrasekaran D, Sobocan M, Blyuss O, Miller RE, Evans O, Crusz SM, et al. Implementation of multigene germline and parallel somatic genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer: SIGNPOST Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(17):4344. doi: 10.3390/cancers13174344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. Pinsky PF, Yu K, Kramer BS, Black A, Buys SS, Partridge E, et al. Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15 years follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143(2):270–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  90. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012;366(11):981–90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Parkes CA, Smith D, Wald NJ, Bourne TH. Feasibility study of a randomised trial of ovarian cancer screening among the general population. J Med Screen 1994;1(4):209–14. doi: 10.1177/096914139400100404. PMID: 8790521. doi: 10.1177/096914139400100404. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Fry A, Littlejohns TJ, Sudlow C, Doherty N, Adamska L, Sprosen T, et al. Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK biobank participants with those of the general population. Am J Epidemiol 2017;186(9):1026–34. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  93. Navarro M, Nicolas A, Ferrandez A, Lanas A. Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: an update. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23(20):3632–42. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  94. Agide FD, Garmaroudi G, Sadeghi R, Shakibazadeh E, Yaseri M, Koricha ZB, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of health education interventions to increase cervical cancer screening uptake. Eur J Public Health 2018;28(6):1156–62. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cky197. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. NCRAS. Ovarian Cancer Audit Feasibility Pilot: Geographic Variation in Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Treatment in England. 2020 [17/12/2021]. Available from: www.ncin.org.uk/cancer_type_and_topic_specific_work/cancer_type_specific_work/gynaecological_cancer/gynaecological_cancer_hub/ovarian_cancer_audit_feasibility_pilot_outputs.
  96. Timmermans M, Sonke GS, Slangen BFM, Baalbergen A, Bekkers RLM, Fons G, et al. Outcome of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer varies between geographical regions; opportunities for improvement in The Netherlands. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019;45(8):1425–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Narasimhulu DM, Kumar A, Weaver AL, McGree ME, Langstraat CL, Cliby WA. Using an evidence-based triage algorithm to reduce 90-day mortality after primary debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155(1):58–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Warren JL, Harlan LC, Trimble EL, Stevens J, Grimes M, Cronin KA. Trends in the receipt of guideline care and survival for women with ovarian cancer: a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2017;145(3):486–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  99. Lee A, Yang X, Tyrer J, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Mavaddat N, et al. Comprehensive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and epidemiological risk factors. J Med Genet 2021;59(7):632–43. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Blackford AL, Childs EJ, Porter N, Petersen GM, Rabe KG, Gallinger S, et al. A risk prediction tool for individuals with a family history of breast, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer: BRCAPANCPRO. Br J Cancer 2021;125(12):1712–17. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01580-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Russell MR, D’Amato A, Graham C, Crosbie EJ, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, et al. Novel risk models for early detection and screening of ovarian cancer. Oncotarget 2017;8(1):785–97. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.13648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  102. UKCTOCS. UKCTOCS Ovarian Cancer Mortality Results Meeting. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG), London, 18 December 2015.

RESOURCES