» Articles » PMID: 28240969

Evidence of Stage Shift in Women Diagnosed With Ovarian Cancer During Phase II of the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study

Abstract

Purpose To establish the performance of screening with serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), interpreted using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA), and transvaginal sonography (TVS) for women at high risk of ovarian cancer (OC) or fallopian tube cancer (FTC). Patients and Methods Women whose estimated lifetime risk of OC/FTC was ≥ 10% were recruited at 42 centers in the United Kingdom and underwent ROCA screening every 4 months. TVS occurred annually if ROCA results were normal or within 2 months of an abnormal ROCA result. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) was encouraged throughout the study. Participants were observed via cancer registries, questionnaires, and notification by centers. Performance was calculated after censoring 365 days after prior screen, with modeling of occult cancers detected at RRSO. Results Between June 14, 2007, and May 15, 2012, 4,348 women underwent 13,728 women-years of screening. The median follow-up time was 4.8 years. Nineteen patients were diagnosed with invasive OC/FTC within 1 year of prior screening (13 diagnoses were screen-detected and six were occult at RRSO). No symptomatic interval cancers occurred. Ten (52.6%) of the total 19 diagnoses were stage I to II OC/FTC (CI, 28.9% to 75.6%). Of the 13 screen-detected cancers, five (38.5%) were stage I to II (CI, 13.9% to 68.4%). Of the six occult cancers, five (83.3%) were stage I to II (CI, 35.9% to 99.6%). Modeled sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for OC/FTC detection within 1 year were 94.7% (CI, 74.0% to 99.9%), 10.8% (6.5% to 16.5%), and 100% (CI, 100% to 100%), respectively. Seven (36.8%) of the 19 cancers diagnosed < 1 year after prior screen were stage IIIb to IV (CI, 16.3% to 61.6%) compared with 17 (94.4%) of 18 cancers diagnosed > 1 year after screening ended (CI, 72.7% to 99.9%; P < .001). Eighteen (94.8%) of 19 cancers diagnosed < 1 year after prior screen had zero residual disease (with lower surgical complexity, P = .16) (CI, 74.0% to 99.9%) compared with 13 (72.2%) of 18 cancers subsequently diagnosed (CI, 46.5% to 90.3%; P = .09). Conclusion ROCA-based screening is an option for women at high risk of OC/FTC who defer or decline RRSO, given its high sensitivity and significant stage shift. However, it remains unknown whether this strategy would improve survival in screened high-risk women.

Citing Articles

Small molecule inhibition of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 alters cell metabolism proteins and exerts anti- or pro-tumorigenic effects contingent upon chemosensitivity status in high grade serous ovarian cancer.

Jansen C, McAdams J, Kim C, De La Cruz P, Salaverria A, DaSilva N Front Pharmacol. 2025; 16:1547164.

PMID: 40078282 PMC: 11897294. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1547164.


Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery versus surgery followed by chemotherapy for initial treatment in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

Shawky M, Choudhary C, Coleridge S, Bryant A, Morrison J Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025; 2:CD005343.

PMID: 39927569 PMC: 11808835. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub7.


Estimating the ovarian cancer CA-125 preclinical detectable phase, in-vivo tumour doubling time, and window for detection in early stage: an exploratory analysis of UKCTOCS.

Bedia J, Jacobs I, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Singh N EBioMedicine. 2025; 112:105554.

PMID: 39808947 PMC: 11782890. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105554.


Analysis of endometrial liquid‑based cytology samples to detect somatic mutations and classify ovarian cancer.

Kubo-Kaneda M, Kondo E, Nimura R, Okamoto K, Matsumoto T, Yoshida K Oncol Lett. 2025; 29(3):119.

PMID: 39807103 PMC: 11726286. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2025.14866.


Reduced Breast and Ovarian Cancer Through Targeted Genetic Testing: Estimates Using the NEEMO Microsimulation Model.

Petelin L, Cunich M, Procopio P, Schofield D, Devereux L, Nickson C Cancers (Basel). 2025; 16(24.

PMID: 39766065 PMC: 11674464. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16244165.


References
1.
Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C, DeFazio A, Emmanuel C, George J . BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(21):2654-63. PMC: 3413277. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.8545. View

2.
Brain K, Lifford K, Fraser L, Rosenthal A, Rogers M, Lancastle D . Psychological outcomes of familial ovarian cancer screening: no evidence of long-term harm. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 127(3):556-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.08.034. View

3.
Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A . 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. View

4.
Marchetti C, De Felice F, Palaia I, Perniola G, Musella A, Musio D . Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: a meta-analysis on impact on ovarian cancer risk and all cause mortality in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers. BMC Womens Health. 2014; 14:150. PMC: 4271468. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-014-0150-5. View

5.
Hermsen B, Olivier R, Verheijen R, van Beurden M, de Hullu J, Massuger L . No efficacy of annual gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers; an observational follow-up study. Br J Cancer. 2007; 96(9):1335-42. PMC: 2360170. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603725. View