|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorials
Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia
Am Fam Physician. 2016 Jun 1;93(11):906.
Related editorial: What Women and Their Physicians Need to Know About the UKCTOCS Study and Ovarian Cancer Screening
Screening
for ovarian cancer is reminiscent of screening for prostate cancer:
Although we have tests that seem like they should work to reduce
mortality (e.g., cancer antigen [CA] 125 measurement plus
ultrasonography, prostate-specific antigen testing), unfortunately we
are not there yet. Publication of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial
of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)1
generated a lot of publicity because on the surface it appeared to
deliver on the promise of effective screening for ovarian cancer. The
protocol consisted of the rigorous application of a risk of ovarian
cancer algorithm (ROCA) rather than simply relying on the results of CA
125 testing with a single cutoff value for an abnormal result. From the
Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, we
already know that using a single cutoff value does not reduce
mortality.2
Although some findings seemed promising in the current study, they
ultimately did not show convincing effectiveness. Shortcomings included
the following:
(1) The reduction in ovarian cancer mortality was not statistically significant.
(2) The reduction was not constant over time.
(3) Only one-fourth of the patients were followed long enough to begin to see a possible benefit.
(4) The effect of screening on all-cause mortality was not reported.
(5) The ROCA is a proprietary algorithm patented by the investigators.
The final point is potentially problematic because physicians and patients, inspired by this trial's publicity, might embark on a screening program but not employ the precise protocol used in the study. However, this protocol has been commercialized (at $295 per use) and promoted to the public in an unqualified way.
In keeping with the principles of the Choosing Wisely campaign, physicians and patients would do well to avoid the pitfalls of overscreening and wait for results that promise more hope than hype.
(1) The reduction in ovarian cancer mortality was not statistically significant.
(2) The reduction was not constant over time.
(3) Only one-fourth of the patients were followed long enough to begin to see a possible benefit.
(4) The effect of screening on all-cause mortality was not reported.
(5) The ROCA is a proprietary algorithm patented by the investigators.
The final point is potentially problematic because physicians and patients, inspired by this trial's publicity, might embark on a screening program but not employ the precise protocol used in the study. However, this protocol has been commercialized (at $295 per use) and promoted to the public in an unqualified way.
In keeping with the principles of the Choosing Wisely campaign, physicians and patients would do well to avoid the pitfalls of overscreening and wait for results that promise more hope than hype.
REFERENCES
1. 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 [published correction appears in Lancet. 2016;387(10022):944]. Lancet.
2016;387(10022):945–956.
2. Buys
SS,
Partridge E,
Black A,
et al.;
PLCO Project Team.
Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate,
Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized
Controlled Trial. JAMA.
2011;305(22):2295–2303.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.