Display options
Cite
Steinkasserer L, Irmgard D, Weiss T, et al. Efficacy of an optimal ovarian cancer screening: a best-case scenario study based on real-world data. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06117-4.
Steinkasserer, L., Irmgard, D., Weiss, T., Dirschlmayer, W., Mossig, M., Zeimet, A. G., & Marth, C. (2021). Efficacy of an optimal ovarian cancer screening: a best-case scenario study based on real-world data. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06117-4
Steinkasserer, Lena, et al. "Efficacy of an optimal ovarian cancer screening: a best-case scenario study based on real-world data." Archives of gynecology and obstetrics vol. (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06117-4
Steinkasserer L, Irmgard D, Weiss T, Dirschlmayer W, Mossig M, Zeimet AG, Marth C. Efficacy of an optimal ovarian cancer screening: a best-case scenario study based on real-world data. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Jun 14; doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06117-4. Epub 2021 Jun 14. PMID: 34125280.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Jun 14; doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06117-4. Epub 2021 Jun 14.

Efficacy of an optimal ovarian cancer screening: a best-case scenario study based on real-world data.

Archives of gynecology and obstetrics

Lena Steinkasserer, Delmarko Irmgard, Tatjana Weiss, Walter Dirschlmayer, Michael Mossig, Alain G Zeimet, Christian Marth

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
  2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Tyrolean Federal Institute for Integrated Care, Tirol Kliniken GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.
  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Barmherzige Schwestern, Linz, Austria.
  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Barmherzige Schwestern Ried, Vienna, Austria.
  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Hietzing, Vienna, Austria.
  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. [email protected].

PMID: 34125280 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06117-4

Abstract

PURPOSE: To date, ovarian cancer screening in asymptomatic women has not shown a mortality benefit. The aim of this simulation study was to outline the impact of different histological subtypes on a potential stage-shift, achieved by screening.

METHODS: Real-world data were derived in the period of 2000-2017 from the Klinischen Tumorregister Austria. We estimated five-year overall survival (OS) of patients with ovarian cancer regarding different histological subtypes and FIGO stages. A theoretical model was generated predicting the trend of OS mediated by an eventual down-shifting of ovarian cancer from FIGO stage III/IV to FIGO stage I/II by screening, considering the influence of different histological subtypes.

RESULTS: 3458 ovarian cancer patients were subdivided according to histological subtypes and FIGO classification. Major difference in distribution of histological types was found between FIGO stage I/II and III/IV. A theoretical down-shift of tumors from high to low FIGO stages based on our registry calculations showed that the five-year OS would increase from 50% to nearly 80% by perfect screening.

CONCLUSION: In our simulation study, we showed that down-shifting ovarian cancers by successful screening might increase OS by 30 percentage point. Our results underscore the importance to recognize ovarian cancer as a heterogenous disease with distinct epidemiologic, molecular and clinical features. The individual characteristic of each histotype is of utmost impact on the definition of screening aims and may influence early detection and stage-shift. Efficacy of screening is mainly dependent on detection of high-risk cancer types and not the slow growing low-grade types.

Keywords: Cancer Screening; Ovarian carcinoma; Stage-shift; Survival rate

References

  1. Hennekens CH, Buring JE (1987) Epidemiology in medicine. Little, Boston - PubMed
  2. Wald NJ (2001) The definition of screening. J Med Screen 8:1–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/jms.8.1.1 - PubMed
  3. Reid L (2017) Truth or spin? disease definition in cancer screening. J Med Philos Forum Bioeth Philos Med 42:385–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhx006 - PubMed
  4. Marcus PM, Prorok PC, Miller AB, DeVoto EJ, Kramer BS (2015) Conceptualizing overdiagnosis in cancer screening. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 107:14. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv014 - PubMed
  5. Barratt A, Mannes P, Irwig L, Trevena L, Craig J, Rychetnik L (2002) Cancer screening. J Epidemiol Community Health 56:899–902. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.12.899 - PubMed
  6. Berek JS, Hacker NF (2015) Berek & Hacker’s gynecologic oncology. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia - PubMed
  7. Wilson J, Jungner G (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organization, Geneva - PubMed
  8. World Health Organization (2013) WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. World Health Organization, Geneva - PubMed
  9. Lynge E, Rygaard C, Baillet MVP, Dugué PA, Sander BB, Bonde J, Rebolj M (2014) Cervical cancer screening at crossroads. APMIS 122:667–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12279 - PubMed
  10. Brenner H, Kloor M, Pox CP (2014) Colorectal cancer. The Lancet 383:1490–1502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61649-9 - PubMed
  11. Bretthauer M (2011) Colorectal cancer screening: review: colorectal cancer screening. J Intern Med 270:87–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02399.x - PubMed
  12. Burt RW, Cannon JA, David DS, Early DS, Ford JM, Giardiello FM, Halverson AL, Hamilton SR, Hampel H et al (2013) Colorectal cancer screening. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11:1538–1575. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61649-9 - PubMed
  13. Temkin SM, Miller EA, Samimi G, Berg CD, Pinsky P, Minasian L (2017) Outcomes from ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial: Histologic heterogeneity impacts detection, overdiagnosis and survival. Eur J Cancer 87:182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.015 - PubMed
  14. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, Amso NN, Apostolidou S, Benjamin E et al (2016) Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 387:945–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6 - PubMed
  15. Henderson JT, Webber EM, Sawaya GF (2018) Screening for Ovarian Cancer: An Updated Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493399/ Accessed 27 Jan 2020 - PubMed
  16. Havrilesky LJ, Sanders GD, Kulasingam S, Chino JP, Berchuck A, Marks JR, Myers ER (2011) Development of an ovarian cancer screening decision model that incorporates disease heterogeneity: implications for potential mortality reduction. Cancer 117:545–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25624 - PubMed
  17. Kurman RJ, Shih IM (2016) The dualistic model of ovarian carcinogenesis. revisited, revised, and expanded. Am J Pathol 186:733–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.11.011 - PubMed
  18. Jayson GC, Kohn EC, Kitchener HC, Ledermann JA (2014) Ovarian cancer. The Lancet 384:1376–1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62146-7 - PubMed
  19. Chen VW, Ruiz B, Killeen JL, Coté TR, Wu XC, Correa CN (2003) Pathology and classification of ovarian tumors. Cancer 97:2631–2642. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11345 - PubMed
  20. McGee J, Bookman M, Harter P, Marth C, McNeish I, Moore KN, Poveda A, Hilpert F, Hasegawa K et al (2017) Fifth ovarian cancer consensus conference: individualized therapy and patient factors. Ann Oncol 28:702–710. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx010 - PubMed
  21. Kurman R, Carcangiu M, Herrington C, Young R (2014) WHO Classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. IARC, Lyon - PubMed
  22. Lin M, Lucas HC, Shmueli G (2013) too big to fail: large samples and the p value problem. Inf Syst Res 24:906–917. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0480 - PubMed
  23. Goff BA, Mandel LS, Drescher CW, Urban N, Gough S, Schurman KM, Patras J, Mahony BS, Andersen MR (2007) Development of an ovarian cancer symptom index: possibilities for earlier detection. Cancer 109:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22371 - PubMed
  24. Barnard ME, Pyden A, Rice MS, Linares M, Tworoger SS, Howitt BE, Meserve EE, Hecht JL (2018) Inter-pathologist and pathology report agreement for ovarian tumor characteristics in the Nurses’ Health Studies. Gynecol Oncol 150:521–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.07.003 - PubMed
  25. Matsuno RK, Sherman ME, Visvanathan K, Goodman MT, Hernandez BY, Lynch CF, Ioffe OB, Horio D, Platz C et al (2013) Agreement for tumor grade of ovarian carcinoma: analysis of archival tissues from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results residual tissue repository. Cancer Causes Control 24:749–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-013-0157-5 - PubMed
  26. Kim H-S, Kim JH (2019) Proceed with caution when using real world data and real world evidence. J Korean Med Sci 34:e28. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e28 - PubMed
  27. Blonde L, Khunti K, Harris SB, Meizinger C, Skolnik NS (2018) Interpretation and impact of real-world clinical data for the practicing clinician. Adv Ther 35:1763–1774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0805-y - PubMed
  28. Peres LC, Cushing-Haugen KL, Köbel M, Harris HR, Berchuck A, Rossing MA, Schildkraut JM, Doherty JA (2019) Invasive epithelial ovarian cancer survival by histotype and disease stage. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 111:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy071 - PubMed
  29. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, Lamerato L, Isaacs C, Reding JD, Greenlee RT, Yokochi LA et al (2011) Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA 305:2295. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.766 - PubMed

Publication Types