A large-scale, randomized trial of annual screening for ovarian cancer, led by University College London (UCL) researchers, failed in reducing deaths from the disease, despite the fact that one of the screening methods tested detecting cancers earlier. Results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) have been published in a report in the medical journal The Lancet.
In the UK, 4,000 women die from ovarian cancer each year. It is not usually diagnosed until it is at a late stage and hard to treat. UKCTOCS was designed to test the hypothesis that a reliable screening method that picks up ovarian cancer earlier, when treatments are more likely to be effective, could save lives.
The latest analysis looked at data from more than 200,000 women ranging from ages 50 to 74 at recruitment who were followed up for an average of 16 years. The women were randomly allocated to one of three groups: no screening, annual screening using an ultrasound scan, and annual multimodal screening involving a blood test followed by an ultrasound scan as a second line test.
The researchers found that, while the approach using multimodal testing succeeded in picking up cancers at an early stage, neither screening method led to a reduction in deaths. Earlier detection in UKCTOCS did not translate into saving lives. Researchers say this highlighted the importance of requiring evidence that any potential screening test for ovarian cancer reduced deaths, as well as detecting cancers earlier.
Professor Usha Menon (MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL), lead investigator of UKTOCS, says: “UKCTOCS is the first trial to show that screening can definitely detect ovarian cancer earlier. However, this very large, rigorous trial shows clearly that screening using either of the approaches we tested did not save lives. We therefore cannot recommend ovarian cancer screening for the general population using these methods.”
“We are disappointed as this is not the outcome we and everyone involved in the trial had hoped and worked for over so many years,” Menon adds. “To save lives, we will require a better screening test that detects ovarian cancer earlier and in more women than the multimodal screening strategy we used.”
Women between the ages 50 and 74 were enrolled in the trial between 2001 and 2005. Screening lasted until 2011 and was either an annual blood test, monitoring changes in the level of the protein CA125, or a yearly vaginal ultrasound scan. About 100,000 women were assigned to the no screening group, and more than 50,000 women to each of the screening groups.
Blood test screening picked up 39% more cancers at an early stage (Stage I/II), while detecting 10% fewer late-stage cancers (Stage III/IV) compared to the no screening group. There was no difference in the stage of cancers detected in the ultrasound group compared to the no screening group.
The initial analysis of deaths in the trial occurred in 2015, but there was not enough data at that time to conclude whether screening reduced deaths. By looking at five more years of follow up data from the women involved, researchers are now able to conclude that the screening did not save lives.
Professor Mahesh Parmar, Director of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL and a senior author on the paper, says: “There have been significant improvements in the treatment of advanced disease in the last 10 years, since screening in our trial ended. Our trial showed that screening was not effective in women who do not have any symptoms of ovarian cancer; in women who do have symptoms early diagnosis, combined with this better treatment, can still make a difference to quality of life and, potentially, improve outcomes.”
“On top of this, getting a diagnosis quickly, whatever the stage of the cancer, is profoundly important to women and their families,” Parmar concludes.