↓ Skip to main content

Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
792 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
765 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial
Published in
The Lancet, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01224-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian J Jacobs, Usha Menon, Andy Ryan, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Matthew Burnell, Jatinderpal K Kalsi, Nazar N Amso, Sophia Apostolidou, Elizabeth Benjamin, Derek Cruickshank, Danielle N Crump, Susan K Davies, Anne Dawnay, Stephen Dobbs, Gwendolen Fletcher, Jeremy Ford, Keith Godfrey, Richard Gunu, Mariam Habib, Rachel Hallett, Jonathan Herod, Howard Jenkins, Chloe Karpinskyj, Simon Leeson, Sara J Lewis, William R Liston, Alberto Lopes, Tim Mould, John Murdoch, David Oram, Dustin J Rabideau, Karina Reynolds, Ian Scott, Mourad W Seif, Aarti Sharma, Naveena Singh, Julie Taylor, Fiona Warburton, Martin Widschwendter, Karin Williamson, Robert Woolas, Lesley Fallowfield, Alistair J McGuire, Stuart Campbell, Mahesh Parmar, Steven J Skates

Abstract

Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the effect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality. In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer-generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202 638 women: 50 640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50 639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101 359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202 546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50 624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50 623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101 299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345 570 MMS and 327 775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0-12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0-14 of 15% (95% CI -3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (-7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar flexible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality effect was made up of 8% (-20 to 31) in years 0-7 and 23% (1-46) in years 7-14, and in the USS group, of 2% (-27 to 26) in years 0-7 and 21% (-2 to 42) in years 7-14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly different death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (-2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (-27 to 43) in years 0-7 and 28% (-3 to 49) in years 7-14 in favour of MMS. Although the mortality reduction was not significant in the primary analysis, we noted a significant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7-14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening. Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, The Eve Appeal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 175 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 765 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 752 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 112 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 106 14%
Student > Master 93 12%
Researcher 86 11%
Other 53 7%
Other 138 18%
Unknown 177 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 303 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 74 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 3%
Engineering 18 2%
Other 86 11%
Unknown 211 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1165. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2024.
All research outputs
#12,581
of 25,605,018 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#380
of 42,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125
of 381,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#4
of 371 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,605,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 371 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.