CA125 test result, test-to-diagnosis interval, and stage in ovarian cancer at diagnosis: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records

Background In the UK, the cancer antigen 125 (CA125) test is recommended as a first-line investigation in women with symptoms of possible ovarian cancer. Aim To compare time between initial primary care CA125 test and diagnosis, tumour morphology, and stage in women with normal (<35 U/ml) and abnormal (≥35 U/ml) CA125 levels prior to ovarian cancer diagnosis. Design and setting Retrospective cohort study using English primary care and cancer registry data. Method Associations between CA125 test results and test-to-diagnosis interval, stage, and ovarian cancer morphology were examined. Results In total, 456 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the 12 months after having a CA125 test. Of these, 351 (77%) had an abnormal, and 105 (23%) had a normal, CA125 test result. The median test-to-diagnosis interval was 35 days (interquartile range [IQR] 21–53) for those with abnormal CA125 levels, and 64 days (IQR 42–127) for normal CA125 levels. Tumour morphology differed by CA125 result: indolent borderline tumours were less common in those with abnormal CA125 levels (n = 47, 13%) than those with normal CA125 levels (n = 51, 49%) (P<0.001). Staging data were available for 304 women with abnormal, and 77 with normal, CA125 levels. Of those with abnormal CA125 levels, 35% (n = 106) were diagnosed at an early stage, compared to 86% (n = 66) of women with normal levels. The odds of being diagnosed with early-stage disease were higher in women with normal as opposed to abnormal CA125 levels (odds ratio 12.2, 95% confidence interval = 5.8 to 25.1, P<0.001). Conclusion Despite longer intervals between testing and diagnosis, women with normal, compared with abnormal, CA125 levels more frequently had indolent tumours and were more commonly diagnosed at an early stage in the course of the disease. Although testing approaches that have greater sensitivity might expedite diagnosis for some women, it is not known if this would translate to earlier-stage diagnosis.

[1]  F. Walter,et al.  The diagnostic performance of CA125 for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancer in primary care: A population-based cohort study , 2020, PLoS medicine.

[2]  J. Emery,et al.  Variation in the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of international guidelines , 2019, BMC Cancer.

[3]  P. Whiting,et al.  Predictive value of inflammatory markers for cancer diagnosis in primary care: a prospective cohort study using electronic health records , 2019, British Journal of Cancer.

[4]  Katherine E Henson,et al.  Data Resource Profile: National Cancer Registration Dataset in England , 2019, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  D. Fishman,et al.  Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer. , 2023, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine.

[6]  Helen Strongman,et al.  Approach to record linkage of primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink to other health-related patient data: overview and implications , 2018, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[7]  E. Crosbie,et al.  Recognizing Gynecological Cancer in Primary Care: Risk Factors, Red Flags, and Referrals , 2018, Advances in Therapy.

[8]  K. Barraclough,et al.  Is omission of free text records a possible source of data loss and bias in Clinical Practice Research Datalink studies? A case–control study , 2016, BMJ Open.

[9]  C. Borgfeldt,et al.  Long‐term survival in women with borderline ovarian tumors: a population‐based survey of borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960–2007 , 2016, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[10]  K. Bhaskaran,et al.  Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[11]  C. Salisbury,et al.  Patient–doctor continuity and diagnosis of cancer: electronic medical records study in general practice , 2015, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  K. Mahtani,et al.  NEGATIVE RHEUMATOID FACTOR IN PRIMARY CARE DELAYS REFERRAL OF PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS , 2014 .

[13]  O C Ukoumunne,et al.  Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[14]  K. Bhaskaran,et al.  Completeness and usability of ethnicity data in UK-based primary care and hospital databases , 2013, Journal of public health.

[15]  M. Frydenberg,et al.  Evidence of increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals for five common cancers: a cohort study in primary care. , 2013, European journal of cancer.

[16]  M. Zikan,et al.  Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. , 2012, The oncologist.

[17]  J. Sampalis,et al.  Assessment of symptomatic women for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer: results from the prospective DOvE pilot project. , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  C. Redman,et al.  Recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer: summary of NICE guidance , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  T. Peters,et al.  Risk of ovarian cancer in women with symptoms in primary care: population based case-control study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  L. R. Medeiros,et al.  Accuracy of CA 125 in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a quantitative systematic review. , 2009, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[21]  Frede Olesen,et al.  Delay in diagnosis of lung cancer in general practice. , 2006, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[22]  O. Clark,et al.  False-negative fine-needle aspiration cytology results delay treatment and adversely affect outcome in patients with thyroid carcinoma. , 2004, Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association.

[23]  T. Risberg,et al.  Diagnostic delay causes more psychological distress in female than in male cancer patients. , 1996, Anticancer research.

[24]  Shinichiro,et al.  Carcinoma , 1906, The Hospital.

[25]  A. Culyer,et al.  False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. , 2000, Health technology assessment.

[26]  R. Bast,et al.  The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. , 1989, Human reproduction.