Evidence of Lack of Mortality Benefit Associated With Screening

References

1. Pinsky PF, Miller EA, Zhu CS, et al.: Overall mortality in men and women in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. J Med Screen 26 (3): 127-134, 2019. [PubMed: 30943843]
2. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, 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 397 (10290): 2182-2193, 2021. [PMC free article: PMC8192829] [PubMed: 33991479]
3. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, et al.: Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387 (10022): 945-56, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC4779792] [PubMed: 26707054]

References

1. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed September 5, 2024.
2. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 2024. American Cancer Society, 2024. Available online. Last accessed June 21, 2024.
3. Koshiyama M, Matsumura N, Konishi I: Subtypes of Ovarian Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Screening. Diagnostics (Basel) 7 (1): , 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5373021] [PubMed: 28257098]

References

1. Prat J: Ovarian carcinomas: five distinct diseases with different origins, genetic alterations, and clinicopathological features. Virchows Arch 460 (3): 237-49, 2012. [PubMed: 22322322]
2. Cramer DW: The epidemiology of endometrial and ovarian cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 26 (1): 1-12, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3259524] [PubMed: 22244658]

References

1. Hunn J, Rodriguez GC: Ovarian cancer: etiology, risk factors, and epidemiology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 55 (1): 3-23, 2012. [PubMed: 22343225]
2. Cramer DW: The epidemiology of endometrial and ovarian cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 26 (1): 1-12, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3259524] [PubMed: 22244658]

The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

TVU (or transvaginal sonogram [TVS]) has been proposed as a screening method for ovarian cancer because of its ability to reliably measure ovarian size and detect small masses.[5]

In the UKCTOCS, outcomes among 50,623 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 74 years who were randomly assigned to 7 to 11 rounds of annual screening with TVU alone and 50,625 who underwent multimodal screening with CA-125 testing and TVU (see below) were compared with results from a comparison group of 101,299 women who were not screened. Women were recruited in 13 trial centers across the United Kingdom from 2001 to 2005. After trial initiation, but before analysis, the protocol was amended twice: 1) the study was extended to achieve greater power and 2) criteria for referral in the multimodal arm were liberalized to increase the percentage of positive screens.[6] Because the number of events were less than anticipated on the planned censorship date, the authors extended the follow-up period. No formal adjustments were made to account for the previously analyzed data in 2015, rather the authors acknowledged the P values were not adjusted for multiplicity. Additionally, the authors changed the statistical analysis plan for the extended follow-up analysis from a Cox version of the log-rank test to the versatile test in efforts to be sensitive to delayed mortality effects in screening trials.[7]

TVUs were scored as normal, resulting in continued annual screening; intermediate, leading to repeat CA-125 and TVU at 3 months; or abnormal, requiring repeat testing within 6 weeks. In the TVU arm, 445 cancers were diagnosed and 291 ovarian cancer–related deaths occurred compared with the nonscreened arm, in which 905 cancers were diagnosed and 619 ovarian cancer–related deaths occurred. TVU screening resulted in 50 surgeries per 10,000 women for a false-positive screen. Complications occurred in less than 1% of screening examinations and 3.4% of surgeries. Over a median of 16.3 years, ovarian cancer deaths occurred among 0.6% of screened women and 0.6% of unscreened women.[6-8]

CA-125 Serum Testing for Ovarian Cancer Screening

CA-125 is a tumor-associated antigen that is used clinically to monitor patients with epithelial ovarian carcinomas.[9,10] Measurement of CA-125 concentrations has been proposed as a potential marker for the early detection of ovarian cancer, either as a single test with a threshold cutpoint or in algorithms examining the change in levels over time. The two randomized trials have included CA-125 either in parallel or sequentially with TVU for multimodality screening. The most commonly reported CA-125 reference value that designates a positive screening test is 35 U/mL; this was the reference value used in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial (NCT01696994) to define an abnormal test result. The measurement of CA-125 levels, in parallel combination with TVU,[11] is the ovarian screening intervention evaluated in the PLCO trial.[12,13] Elevated CA-125 levels are not specific to ovarian cancer and have been observed in patients with nongynecological cancers,[10] endometriosis,[14] liver disease, congestive heart failure, pleural or peritoneal fluid accumulation, and in the first trimester of pregnancy.[15,16] The sensitivity of the CA-125 test for the detection of ovarian cancer was estimated in two nested case-control studies using serum banks.[17,18] The sensitivity for CA-125 levels of at least 35 U/mL ranged from 20% to 57% for cases occurring within the first 3 years of follow-up; the specificity was 95%.

A phase II/III biomarker study was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of several markers of ovarian cancer, including CA-125 concentrations, using specimens collected from ovarian cancer patients at four sites. The estimated sensitivity for early-stage disease (stage I and II ovarian cancer) was 56% (95% CI, 49%–72%) for a cutpoint set to obtain a fixed specificity of 95%. The threshold for the cutpoint for CA-125 at 95% specificity was 24 U/mL. For all cases (56% of cases had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis), the sensitivity was 73% (95% CI, 64%–84%). When the clinical cutpoint of 35 U/mL was used, the sensitivity decreased.[19]

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: Single-Threshold CA-125 Levels and TVU

The PLCO trial evaluated the effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality among women aged 55 to 74 years on the basis of six annual screens with serum CA-125 testing at a threshold for positive of 35 U/mL and four annual screens with TVU. Women were randomly assigned to screening (n = 39,105) or usual care (n = 39,111) at ten screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. Participants and their health care practitioners received the screening test results and managed evaluation of abnormal results. The usual-care group was not offered screening with CA-125 or TVU but received their usual medical care. Participants were initially monitored for a maximum of 13 years (median, 12.4 years; range, 10.9–13.0 years) for cancer diagnoses and death until February 28, 2010. Mortality from ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers, was the main outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included ovarian cancer incidence and complications associated with screening examinations and diagnostic procedures.[20] After transition of PLCO trial participants to a centralized follow-up process, follow-up for mortality was extended until the end of 2012, for a maximum of 19.2 years and a median of 14.7 years.[21]

Compliance with screening ranged from 85% at the initial round to 73% at the sixth round, while contamination in the usual-care group ranged from about 3.0% for CA-125 to 4.6% for TVU. Across the first four screening rounds, 11.1% of women had at least one positive test, 8.1% had at least one positive TVU, and 3.4% had at least one positive CA-125 test. The yields of both tests were similar. Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 212 women (5.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 176 women (4.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99–1.48). The stage distributions were similar by study group, with stage III and IV cancers comprising most cases in both the intervention group (163 cases, 77%) and the usual-care group (137 cases, 78%). The cancer case treatment distributions were very similar between groups within each stage. Through the original period of follow-up (maximum, 13 years), ovarian cancer caused 118 deaths (3.1 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 100 deaths (2.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual-care group (mortality rate ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.82–1.71). Long-term follow-up of a median of 17 years for women with at least one ovary demonstrated an ovarian cancer mortality rate of 4.4 deaths per 10,000 person-years (246 ovarian cancer deaths) in the intervention arm and 3.8 deaths per 10,000 person-years (209 ovarian cancer deaths) in the usual-care arm (rate ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.98–1.4).[22]

Of the 3,285 women with false-positive results, 1,080 underwent surgical follow-up. Of the 1,080 women who underwent surgical follow-up, 163 women experienced at least one serious complication (15%). A total of 1,771 women in the intervention group (7.7%) and 1,304 in the usual-care group (5.8%) reported oophorectomy. There were 2,924 deaths resulting from other causes (excluding ovarian, colorectal, and lung cancer) (76.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 2,914 such deaths (76.2 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96–1.06).[20,23]

In the PLCO trial, women with visualized ovaries were at slightly higher risk of ovarian cancer (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.00–2.01) than were women who had nonvisualized ovaries.[24] A nested analysis found that ovarian volume increases were detectable 1 to 2 years before diagnosis, but the magnitude of change did not appear translatable to clinical management. Thus, among women in the general U.S. population, simultaneous screening with CA-125 and TVU did not reduce ovarian cancer mortality when compared with usual care.[20]

The Shizuoka Cohort Study of Ovarian Cancer Screening randomly assigned women to either a screening group (n = 41,668) or a control group (n = 40,799) between 1985 and 1999 at 212 hospitals in the Shizuoka prefecture of Japan. The screening protocol comprised ultrasound and CA-125 tests annually. Women with abnormal findings were referred to a gynecological oncologist. Ovarian cancer diagnoses were determined by record linkage to the Shizuoka Cancer Registry in 2002. The annual death certificate file in Shizuoka was checked to ascertain vital status. The mean follow-up time was 9.2 years, and the mean number of screens per woman was 5.4. There were 35 ovarian cancers detected in the screening group and 32 in the control group, with a nonstatistically significant difference in the stage distribution. Nine percent of regular screening attendees had at least one false-positive result.[25] Mortality results from this trial are not available.

Ovarian Cancer Screening Using CA-125 Analyzed According to the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) for a Positive Test Result in Combination With TVU

The UKCTOCS trial evaluated longitudinal CA-125 measurements using the ROCA, which defines a positive test as a statistically significant increase in a woman’s serial measurements based on the algorithm, irrespective of the absolute level. The goal of this approach is to detect cancers earlier by identifying subtle within-person changes. The UKCTOCS multimodal screen incorporated a two-stage approach with ROCA as the primary screen and TVS as a secondary screen (based on results of the ROCA) for its impact on ovarian cancer mortality compared with observation without screening. Of 50,078 women in the multimodality screening arm, 452 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 296 died of the disease. In this arm, less than 1% of screens led to complications, and 3.1% of women developed surgical complications. Using multimodal screening, 14 per 10,000 screens led to surgery for a false-positive result.

There was a 39.2% (95% CI, 16.1–66.9) higher incidence of stage I or II disease and a 10.2% (95% CI, -21.3 to 2.4) lower incidence of stage III and IV disease in the multimodality screening arm compared with the no screening arm. However, despite the stage shift, at a median follow-up of 16.3 years, there was no significant difference in mortality, with 0.6% deaths in the multimodality screening arm compared with 0.6% in the observation arm.[7]

A post hoc nested study was conducted within the PLCO trial to determine if the use of ROCA could potentially improve the identification of early-stage (stage I and stage II) ovarian cancer.[26] The study evaluated the potential impact under two scenarios: best case and stage shift. Best-case scenario assumed that all cancers that would have been detected earlier with ROCA than with single-threshold CA-125 concentrations would have avoided mortality. The stage-shift scenario applied the observed PLCO early-stage survival rates to cases detected at an earlier stage with ROCA. The risk of death from ovarian cancer with ROCA was lower, but estimates were not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] of 0.90 for best-case scenario [95% CI, 0.69–1.17] and RR of 0.95 for stage-shift scenario [95% CI, 0.74–1.23]).

Another retrospective study using annual CA-125 concentrations from the PLCO trial examined the potential impact of parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) longitudinal algorithm for the earlier detection of 44 incident ovarian cancers identified in the PLCO trial. Setting the specificity at 99%, PEB signaled “abnormal” CA-125 concentrations, on average, 10 months earlier than with the single-threshold cutpoint.[27] An analysis of serial CA-125 concentrations from the UKCTOCS trial demonstrated superior performance characteristics for ovarian cancer screening using longitudinal algorithms, compared with a single CA-125 threshold.[28] Whether either of these approaches translates into a mortality benefit could not be determined.

CA-125 velocity has also been examined using a multiple logistic regression model within the PLCO trial as a predictor for the development of ovarian cancer.[29] Both CA-125 velocity and time intervals between screening tests were associated with the development of ovarian cancer. The risk of ovarian cancer increased as velocity (measured as U/mL per month) increased, and the risk of ovarian cancer decreased when the time intervals between screening tests increased.

References

1. Goff BA, Mandel LS, Melancon CH, et al.: Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA 291 (22): 2705-12, 2004. [PubMed: 15187051]
2. Lim AW, Mesher D, Gentry-Maharaj A, et al.: Predictive value of symptoms for ovarian cancer: comparison of symptoms reported by questionnaire, interview, and general practitioner notes. J Natl Cancer Inst 104 (2): 114-24, 2012. [PubMed: 22247022]
3. Smith LH, Oi RH: Detection of malignant ovarian neoplasms: a review of the literature. I. Detection of the patient at risk; clinical, radiological and cytological detection. Obstet Gynecol Surv 39 (6): 313-28, 1984. [PubMed: 6374536]
4. Hall DJ, Hurt WG: The adnexal mass. J Fam Pract 14 (1): 135-40, 1982. [PubMed: 7054360]
5. Higgins RV, van Nagell JR, Woods CH, et al.: Interobserver variation in ovarian measurements using transvaginal sonography. Gynecol Oncol 39 (1): 69-71, 1990. [PubMed: 2227575]
6. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, et al.: Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387 (10022): 945-56, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC4779792] [PubMed: 26707054]
7. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, 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 397 (10290): 2182-2193, 2021. [PMC free article: PMC8192829] [PubMed: 33991479]
8. Sharma A, Apostolidou S, Burnell M, et al.: Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women with ultrasound-detected ovarian masses: a prospective cohort study within the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40 (3): 338-44, 2012. [PubMed: 22911637]
9. Bast RC, Feeney M, Lazarus H, et al.: Reactivity of a monoclonal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Invest 68 (5): 1331-7, 1981. [PMC free article: PMC370929] [PubMed: 7028788]
10. Bast RC, Klug TL, St John E, et al.: A radioimmunoassay using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 309 (15): 883-7, 1983. [PubMed: 6310399]
11. Jacobs I, Stabile I, Bridges J, et al.: Multimodal approach to screening for ovarian cancer. Lancet 1 (8580): 268-71, 1988. [PubMed: 2893084]
12. Buys SS, Partridge E, Greene MH, et al.: Ovarian cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screen of a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193 (5): 1630-9, 2005. [PubMed: 16260202]
13. Gohagan JK, Levin DL, Prorok JC, et al., eds.: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Control Clin Trials 21(6 suppl): 249S-406S, 2000. [PubMed: 11189684]
14. Jacobs I, Bast RC: The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod 4 (1): 1-12, 1989. [PubMed: 2651469]
15. Niloff JM, Knapp RC, Schaetzl E, et al.: CA125 antigen levels in obstetric and gynecologic patients. Obstet Gynecol 64 (5): 703-7, 1984. [PubMed: 6208522]
16. Haga Y, Sakamoto K, Egami H, et al.: Evaluation of serum CA125 values in healthy individuals and pregnant women. Am J Med Sci 292 (1): 25-9, 1986. [PubMed: 3521278]
17. Zurawski VR, Orjaseter H, Andersen A, et al.: Elevated serum CA 125 levels prior to diagnosis of ovarian neoplasia: relevance for early detection of ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 42 (5): 677-80, 1988. [PubMed: 3182103]
18. Helzlsouer KJ, Bush TL, Alberg AJ, et al.: Prospective study of serum CA-125 levels as markers of ovarian cancer. JAMA 269 (9): 1123-6, 1993. [PubMed: 8433467]
19. Cramer DW, Bast RC, Berg CD, et al.: Ovarian cancer biomarker performance in prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial specimens. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4 (3): 365-74, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3085251] [PubMed: 21372036]
20. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al.: Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 305 (22): 2295-303, 2011. [PubMed: 21642681]
21. Pinsky PF, Yu K, Kramer BS, et al.: Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15years follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 143 (2): 270-275, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC5077651] [PubMed: 27615399]
22. Pinsky PF, Miller EA, Zhu CS, et al.: Overall mortality in men and women in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. J Med Screen 26 (3): 127-134, 2019. [PubMed: 30943843]
23. Partridge E, Kreimer AR, Greenlee RT, et al.: Results from four rounds of ovarian cancer screening in a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 113 (4): 775-82, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2728067] [PubMed: 19305319]
24. Bodelon C, Pfeiffer RM, Buys SS, et al.: Analysis of serial ovarian volume measurements and incidence of ovarian cancer: implications for pathogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 106 (10): , 2014. [PMC free article: PMC4168310] [PubMed: 25217774]
25. Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T, et al.: A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18 (3): 414-20, 2008 May-Jun. [PubMed: 17645503]
26. Pinsky PF, Zhu C, Skates SJ, et al.: Potential effect of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) on the mortality outcome of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trial. Int J Cancer 132 (9): 2127-33, 2013. [PubMed: 23065684]
27. Drescher CW, Shah C, Thorpe J, et al.: Longitudinal screening algorithm that incorporates change over time in CA125 levels identifies ovarian cancer earlier than a single-threshold rule. J Clin Oncol 31 (3): 387-92, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3732015] [PubMed: 23248253]
28. Blyuss O, Burnell M, Ryan A, et al.: Comparison of Longitudinal CA125 Algorithms as a First-Line Screen for Ovarian Cancer in the General Population. Clin Cancer Res 24 (19): 4726-4733, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC6171745] [PubMed: 30084833]
29. Xu JL, Commins J, Partridge E, et al.: Longitudinal evaluation of CA-125 velocity and prediction of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 125 (1): 70-4, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3303942] [PubMed: 22198243]

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers screening. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Screening and Prevention Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

• be discussed at a meeting,
• be cited with text, or
• replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website's Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Screening and Prevention Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Screening and Prevention Editorial Board. PDQ Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancers Screening. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/ovarian/hp/ovarian-screening-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 26389336]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

The information in these summaries should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.