In:
Clinical Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 23, No. 14 ( 2017-07-15), p. 3628-3637
Abstract:
Purpose: Women at familial/genetic ovarian cancer risk often undergo screening despite unproven efficacy. Research suggests each woman has her own CA125 baseline; significant increases above this level may identify cancers earlier than standard 6- to 12-monthly CA125 & gt; 35 U/mL. Experimental Design: Data from prospective Cancer Genetics Network and Gynecologic Oncology Group trials, which screened 3,692 women (13,080 woman-screening years) with a strong breast/ovarian cancer family history or BRCA1/2 mutations, were combined to assess a novel screening strategy. Specifically, serum CA125 q3 months, evaluated using a risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA), detected significant increases above each subject's baseline, which triggered transvaginal ultrasound. Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared with levels derived from general population screening (specificity 90%, PPV 10%), and stage-at-detection was compared with historical high-risk controls. Results: Specificity for ultrasound referral was 92% versus 90% (P = 0.0001), and PPV was 4.6% versus 10% (P & gt; 0.10). Eighteen of 19 malignant ovarian neoplasms [prevalent = 4, incident = 6, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) = 9] were detected via screening or RRSO. Among incident cases (which best reflect long-term screening performance), three of six invasive cancers were early-stage (I/II; 50% vs. 10% historical BRCA1 controls; P = 0.016). Six of nine RRSO-related cases were stage I. ROCA flagged three of six (50%) incident cases before CA125 exceeded 35 U/mL. Eight of nine patients with stages 0/I/II ovarian cancer were alive at last follow-up (median 6 years). Conclusions: For screened women at familial/genetic ovarian cancer risk, ROCA q3 months had better early-stage sensitivity at high specificity, and low yet possibly acceptable PPV compared with CA125 & gt; 35 U/mL q6/q12 months, warranting further larger cohort evaluation. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3628–37. ©2017 AACR.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1078-0432
,
1557-3265
DOI:
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2750
Language:
English
Publisher:
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
Publication Date:
2017
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1225457-5
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2036787-9
