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

Usha Menon, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Matthew Burnell, Naveena Singh, Andy Ryan, Chloe Karpinskyj, Giulia Carlino, Julie Taylor, Susan K Massingham, Maria Raikou, Jatinderpal K Kalsi, Robert Woolas, Ranjit Manchanda, Rupali Arora, Laura Casey, Anne Dawnay, Stephen Dobbs, Simon Leeson, Tim Mould, Mourad W Seif, Aarti Sharma, Karin Williamson, Yiling Liu, Lesley Fallowfield, Alistair J McGuire, Stuart Campbell, Steven J Skates, Ian J Jacobs, Mahesh Parmar, Usha Menon, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Matthew Burnell, Naveena Singh, Andy Ryan, Chloe Karpinskyj, Giulia Carlino, Julie Taylor, Susan K Massingham, Maria Raikou, Jatinderpal K Kalsi, Robert Woolas, Ranjit Manchanda, Rupali Arora, Laura Casey, Anne Dawnay, Stephen Dobbs, Simon Leeson, Tim Mould, Mourad W Seif, Aarti Sharma, Karin Williamson, Yiling Liu, Lesley Fallowfield, Alistair J McGuire, Stuart Campbell, Steven J Skates, Ian J Jacobs, Mahesh Parmar

Abstract

Background: Ovarian cancer continues to have a poor prognosis with the majority of women diagnosed with advanced disease. Therefore, we undertook the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) to determine if population screening can reduce deaths due to the disease. We report on ovarian cancer mortality after long-term follow-up in UKCTOCS.

Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years were recruited from 13 centres in National Health Service trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were bilateral oophorectomy, previous ovarian or active non-ovarian malignancy, or increased familial ovarian cancer risk. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS), annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Follow-up was through national registries. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer (WHO 2014 criteria) by June 30, 2020. Analyses were by intention to screen, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening using the versatile test. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type, whereas the outcomes review committee were masked to randomisation group. This study is registered with ISRCTN, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032.

Findings: Between April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005, of 1 243 282 women invited, 202 638 were recruited and randomly assigned, and 202 562 were included in the analysis: 50 625 (25·0%) in the MMS group, 50 623 (25·0%) in the USS group, and 101 314 (50·0%) in the no screening group. At a median follow-up of 16·3 years (IQR 15·1-17·3), 2055 women were diagnosed with tubal or ovarian cancer: 522 (1·0%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 517 (1·0%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 1016 (1·0%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. Compared with no screening, there was a 47·2% (95% CI 19·7 to 81·1) increase in stage I and 24·5% (-41·8 to -2·0) decrease in stage IV disease incidence in the MMS group. Overall the incidence of stage I or II disease was 39·2% (95% CI 16·1 to 66·9) higher in the MMS group than in the no screening group, whereas the incidence of stage III or IV disease was 10·2% (-21·3 to 2·4) lower. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0·6%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 291 (0·6%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 619 (0·6%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. No significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths was observed in the MMS (p=0·58) or USS (p=0·36) groups compared with the no screening group.

Interpretation: The reduction in stage III or IV disease incidence in the MMS group was not sufficient to translate into lives saved, illustrating the importance of specifying cancer mortality as the primary outcome in screening trials. Given that screening did not significantly reduce ovarian and tubal cancer deaths, general population screening cannot be recommended.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests UM has stock ownership awarded by University College London (UCL) in Abcodia, which holds the licence for ROCA. She has received grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and The Eve Appeal. She holds patent number EP10178345.4 for Breast Cancer Diagnostics. MP has received grants and AG-M, MB, AR, CK, GC, and SKM have been funded by grants from MRC, Cancer Research UK, NIHR, and The Eve Appeal. RM has received grants from The Eve Appeal, Rosetrees Charity, and Barts Charity, and personal fees from AstraZeneca. SJS holds the (expired) patent for ROCA, patented and owned by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London, licenced to Abcodia. He reports stock options from SISCAPA Assay Technologies, and personal fees from Abcodia, Guardant Health, and Freenome, outside the submitted work. IJJ reports grants from Eve Appeal Charity, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. He co-invented the ROCA in 1995, it was patented by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London and is owned by these universities. Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London granted a licence to ROCA to Abcodia in 2014. IJJ is non-executive director, shareholder, and consultant to Abcodia and has rights to royalties from sales of the ROCA. He founded (1985), was a trustee of (2012–14), and is now an Emeritus trustee (2015–present) of The Eve Appeal, one of the funding agencies for UKCTOCS. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile MMS=multimodal screening. USS=ultrasound screening. *Events occurred before recruitment, but were discovered after randomisation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence per 100 000 women for all ovarian and tubal cancers (A) and for invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancers (B) MMS=multimodal screening. USS=ultrasound screening. HR=hazard ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier cumulative mortality for ovarian and tubal cancer per 100 000 women MMS=multimodal screening. USS=ultrasound screening. *Royston-Parmar model based estimates of the effect of screening (appendix p 10).

References

    1. Cancer Research UK Ovarian cancer survival statistics. 2018.
    1. Jacobs IJ, Skates SJ, MacDonald N. Screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1207–1210.
    1. van Nagell JR, Jr, Burgess BT, Miller RW. Survival of women with type I and II epithelial ovarian cancer detected by ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:1091–1100.
    1. Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:414–420.
    1. Campbell S, Bhan V, Royston P, Whitehead MI, Collins WP. Transabdominal ultrasound screening for early ovarian cancer. BMJ. 1989;299:1363–1367.
    1. Jacobs I, Stabile I, Bridges J. Multimodal approach to screening for ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1988;1:268–271.
    1. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305:2295–2303.
    1. Pinsky PF, Yu K, Kramer BS. Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15 years follow-up. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143:270–275.
    1. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:945–956.
    1. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A. Recruitment to multicentre trials—lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study. BMJ. 2008;337
    1. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R. 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;10:327–340.
    1. 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.
    1. 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;96:429–439.
    1. Kalsi JK, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A. Completeness and accuracy of national cancer and death registration for outcome ascertainment in trials-an ovarian cancer exemplar. Trials. 2021;22:88.
    1. Meinhold-Heerlein I, Fotopoulou C, Harter P. The new WHO classification of ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer and its clinical implications. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293:695–700.
    1. Daya D, Cheung AN, Khunamornpong S. Tumors of the peritoneum: epithelial tumors of Müllerian type. In: Kurman RJ CM, Herrington CS, Young RH, editors. WHO classification of tumors of female reproductive organs. 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Lyon: 2014. pp. 92–93.
    1. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization; Lyon: 2003. Tumors of the breast and female genital organs. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours: Pathology and Genetics.
    1. Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Skates SJ. UKCTOCS update: applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis. Trials. 2021;22:173.
    1. Karrison TG. Versatile tests for comparing survival curves based on weighted log-rank statistics. Stata J. 2016;16:678–690.
    1. Rosenthal AN, Fraser LSM, Philpott S. Evidence of stage shift in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during phase II of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1411–1420.
    1. Skates SJ, Greene MH, Buys SS. Early detection of ovarian cancer using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm with frequent CA125 testing in women at increased familial risk—combined results from two screening trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:3628–3637.
    1. Dilley J, Allen P, Gentry-Maharaj A. Symptoms reported by women with screen detected invasive epithelial ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(suppl 2):423–424.
    1. Menon U, Ryan A, Kalsi J. 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;33:2062–2071.
    1. Blyuss O, Burnell M, Ryan A. Comparison of longitudinal CA125 algorithms as a first-line screen for ovarian cancer in the general population. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:4726–4733.
    1. Tabár L, Yen AM, Wu WY. Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs. Breast J. 2015;21:13–20.
    1. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2345–2357.
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:503–513.
    1. Strauss GM, Gleason RE, Sugarbaker DJ. Chest X-ray screening improves outcome in lung cancer. A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer screening. Chest. 1995;107(suppl):270. 79S.
    1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:981–990.
    1. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, et al. Serial CA125 interpreted using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm can detect ovarian cancer in absence of ultrasound abnormalities Innovations & Progress in Healthcare for Women, 2nd International Meeting: Prevention, Screening and Risk Prediction in Women's Health; London; Oct 16, 2009. AB.021 16 (abstr).
    1. Brown PO, Palmer C. The preclinical natural history of serous ovarian cancer: defining the target for early detection. PLoS Med. 2009;6
    1. Menon U, Skates SJ, Lewis S. Prospective study using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm to screen for ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7919–7926.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren