Impact of Screening Test Performance and Cost on Mortality Reduction and Cost-effectiveness of Multimodal Ovarian Cancer Screening

Ongoing ovarian cancer screening trials are investigating the efficacy of a two-step screening strategy using currently available blood and imaging tests [CA125 and transvaginal sonography (TVS)]. Concurrently, efforts to develop new biomarkers and imaging tests seek to improve screening performance beyond its current limits. This study estimates the mortality reduction, years of life saved, and cost-effectiveness achievable by annual multimodal screening using increasing CA125 to select women for TVS, and predicts improvements achievable by replacing currently available screening tests with hypothetical counterparts with better performance characteristics. An existing stochastic microsimulation model is refined and used to screen a virtual cohort of 1 million women from ages 45 to 85 years. Each woman is assigned a detailed disease course and screening results timeline. The preclinical behavior of CA125 and TVS is simulated using empirical data derived from clinical trials. Simulations in which the disease incidence and performance characteristics of the screening tests are independently varied are conducted to evaluate the impact of these factors on overall screening performance and costs. Our results show that when applied to women at average risk, annual screening using increasing CA125 to select women for TVS achieves modest mortality reduction (∼13%) and meets currently accepted cost-effectiveness guidelines. Screening outcomes are relatively insensitive to second-line test performance and costs. Identification of a first-line test that does substantially better than CA125 and has similar costs is required for screening to reduce ovarian mortality by at least 25% and be reasonably cost-effective. Cancer Prev Res; 5(8); 1015–24. ©2012 AACR.

[1]  Sanjiv S Gambhir,et al.  Early diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma: is a solution in sight? , 2011, Radiology.

[2]  Sanjiv S. Gambhir,et al.  Targeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging of Tumor Angiogenesis with Contrast Microbubbles Conjugated to Integrin-Binding Knottin Peptides , 2010, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  J. Berg,et al.  Epidemiologic pathology of ovarian tumors: a histopathologic review of primary ovarian neoplasms diagnosed in the Denver Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1 July-31 December 1969 and 1 July-31 December 1979. , 1982, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[4]  Nicole Urban,et al.  Generating longitudinal screening algorithms using novel biomarkers for disease. , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[5]  Sanjiv S Gambhir,et al.  Targeted microbubbles for imaging tumor angiogenesis: assessment of whole-body biodistribution with dynamic micro-PET in mice. , 2008, Radiology.

[6]  Matthew Burnell,et al.  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) , 2009, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care.

[7]  J. Gohagan,et al.  Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2011, JAMA.

[8]  Robert J. Marinelli,et al.  ESRRA-C11orf20 Is a Recurrent Gene Fusion in Serous Ovarian Carcinoma , 2011, PLoS biology.

[9]  P. Brown,et al.  Systematic Evaluation of Candidate Blood Markers for Detecting Ovarian Cancer , 2008, PloS one.

[10]  Patrick O. Brown,et al.  The Preclinical Natural History of Serous Ovarian Cancer: Defining the Target for Early Detection , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[11]  Qin He,et al.  Evaluation of biomarker panels for early stage ovarian cancer detection and monitoring for disease recurrence. , 2008, Gynecologic oncology.

[12]  Gary Goodman,et al.  Assessing Lead Time of Selected Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers: A Nested Case–Control Study , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  Charles W Drescher,et al.  Potential role of HE4 in multimodal screening for epithelial ovarian cancer. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  N Urban,et al.  Use of a stochastic simulation model to identify an efficient protocol for ovarian cancer screening. , 1997, Controlled clinical trials.

[15]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  Timothy R Church,et al.  Results From Four Rounds of Ovarian Cancer Screening in a Randomized Trial , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  Richard G. Moore,et al.  A prospective U.S. ovarian cancer screening study using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA). , 2010 .

[18]  S. SKATES,et al.  Longitudinal CA125 detection of sporadic papillary serous carcinoma of the peritoneum , 2003, International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society.

[19]  Gillian D Sanders,et al.  Development of an ovarian cancer screening decision model that incorporates disease heterogeneity , 2011, Cancer.

[20]  J. Stoker,et al.  The Department of Health and Human Services. , 1999, Home healthcare nurse.

[21]  Sudhir Srivastava,et al.  A Framework for Evaluating Biomarkers for Early Detection: Validation of Biomarker Panels for Ovarian Cancer , 2011, Cancer Prevention Research.

[22]  Sudhir Srivastava,et al.  Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Performance in Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Specimens , 2011, Cancer Prevention Research.

[23]  J. Nunemacher,et al.  Optimal management of giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica , 2012, Therapeutics and clinical risk management.