Reducing ovarian cancer mortality through screening: Is it possible, and can we afford it?

Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 111, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 179-187

  Havrilesky, Laura J ^a,b   Sanders, Gillian D ^a   Kulasingam, Shalini ^a,b   Myers, Evan R ^a,b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Mortality reduction; Ovarian cancer; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVARY CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 55649124101     PISSN: 00908258     EISSN: 10956859     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Jemal A., Siegel R., Ward E., Murray T., Xu J., Smigal C., et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 56 2 (2006) 106-130
2. Ries L.A.G., MD, Krapcho M., Mariotto A., Miller B.A., Feuer E.J., Clegg L., et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2004 (2007), National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
3. Jacobs I., Davies A.P., Bridges J., Stabile I., Fay T., Lower A., et al. Prevalence screening for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women by CA 125 measurement and ultrasonography. Bmj. 306 6884 (1993) 1030-1034
4. Jacobs I.J., Skates S.J., MacDonald N., Menon U., Rosenthal A.N., Davies A.P., et al. Screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 353 9160 (1999) 1207-1210
5. Menon U., Skates S.J., Lewis S., Rosenthal A.N., Rufford B., Sibley K., et al. Prospective study using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm to screen for ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23 31 (2005) 7919-7926
6. Buys S.S., Partridge E., Greene M.H., Prorok P.C., Reding D., Riley T.L., et al. Ovarian cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screen of a randomized trial. Am. J. Obst. Gynecol. 193 5 (2005) 1630-1639
7. Myers E.R., McCrory D.C., Nanda K., Bastian L., and Matchar D.B. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 151 12 (2000) 1158-1171
8. Myers E.R., McCrory D.C., Subramanian S., McCall N., Nanda K., Datta S., et al. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet. Gynecol. 96 5 Pt 1 (2000) 645-652
9. Myers E.R., Havrilesky L.J., Kulasingam S.L., Sanders G.D., Cline K.E., Gray R.N., et al. Genomic tests for ovarian cancer detection and management. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. 145 (2006) 1-100
10. Arias E. United States life tables, 2003. Natl. Vital. Stat. Rep. 54 14 (2006) 1-40
11. Keshavarz H.H.S., Kieke B.A., and Marchbanks P.A. Hysterectomy surveillance-United States, 1994-1999. MMWR. 51 S S05 (2002) 1-8
12. Merrill R.M. Impact of hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy on race-specific rates of corpus, cervical, and ovarian cancers in the United States. Ann. Epidemiol. 16 12 (2006 Dec) 880-887
13. Wingo P.A., Huezo C.M., Rubin G.L., Ory H.W., and Peterson H.B. The mortality risk associated with hysterectomy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 152 7 Pt 1 (1985) 803-808
14. Hurley S.F., and Matthews J.P. The Quit Benefits Model: a Markov model for assessing the health benefits and health care cost savings of quitting smoking. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 5 (2007) 2
15. Hughes K.S., Roche C., Campbell C.T., Siegel N., Salisbury L., Chekos A., et al. Prevalence of family history of breast and ovarian cancer in a single primary care practice using a self-administered questionnaire. Breast J. 9 1 (2003) 19-25
16. Skates S.J., Horick N., Yu Y., Xu F.J., Berchuck A., Havrilesky L.J., et al. Preoperative sensitivity and specificity for early-stage ovarian cancer when combining cancer antigen CA-125II, CA 15-3, CA 72-4, and macrophage colony-stimulating factor using mixtures of multivariate normal distributions. J. Clin. Oncol. 22 20 (2004) 4059-4066
17. Heintz A.P., Odicino F., Maisonneuve P., Quinn M.A., Benedet J.L., Creasman W.T., et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 6th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 95 Suppl 1 (2006) S161-192
18. Skates S.J., and Singer D.E. Quantifying the potential benefit of CA 125 screening for ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 44 4-5 (1991) 365-380
19. Urban N., Drescher C., Etzioni R., and Colby C. Use of a stochastic simulation model to identify an efficient protocol for ovarian cancer screening. Control. Clin. Trials 18 3 (1997) 251-270
20. Schapira M.M., Matchar D.B., and Young M.J. The effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening. A decision analysis model. Ann. Intern. Med. 118 11 (1993) 838-843
21. Jacobs I., and Bast Jr. R.C. The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England). 4 1 (1989) 1-12
22. Laupacis A., Feeny D., Detsky A.S., and Tugwell P.X. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Cmaj. 146 4 (1992) 473-481
23. Drescher C.W., Nelson J., Peacock S., Andersen M.R., McIntosh M.W., and Urban N. Compliance of average- and intermediate-risk women to semiannual ovarian cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 13 4 (2004) 600-606