The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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)
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer has a high case-fatality ratio, with most women not diagnosed until the disease is in its advanced stages. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) is a randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of screening on mortality. This report summarises the outcome of the prevalence (initial) screen in UKCTOCS. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2005, a total of 202 638 post-menopausal women aged 50-74 years were randomly assigned to no treatment (control; n=101 359); annual CA125 screening (interpreted using a risk of ovarian cancer algorithm) with transvaginal ultrasound scan as a second-line test (multimodal screening [MMS]; n=50 640); or annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound (USS; n=50 639) alone in a 2:1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random number algorithm. All women provided a blood sample at recruitment. Women randomised to the MMS group had their blood tested for CA125 and those randomised to the USS group were sent an appointment to attend for a transvaginal scan. Women with abnormal screens had repeat tests. Women with persistent abnormality on repeat screens underwent clinical evaluation and, where appropriate, surgery. This trial is registered as ISRCTN22488978 and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. FINDINGS: In the prevalence screen, 50 078 (98.9%) women underwent MMS, and 48 230 (95.2%) underwent USS. The main reasons for withdrawal were death (two MMS, 28 USS), non-ovarian cancer or other disease (none MMS, 66 USS), removal of ovaries (five MMS, 29 USS), relocation (none MMS, 39 USS), failure to attend three appointments for the screen (72 MMS, 757 USS), and participant changing their mind (483 MMS, 1490 USS). Overall, 4355 of 50 078 (8.7%) women in the MMS group and 5779 of 48 230 (12.0%) women in the USS group required a repeat test, and 167 (0.3%) women in the MMS group and 1894 (3.9%) women in the USS group required clinical evaluation. 97 of 50 078 (0.2%) women from the MMS group and 845 of 48 230 (1.8%) from the USS group underwent surgery. 42 (MMS) and 45 (USS) primary ovarian and tubal cancers were detected, including 28 borderline tumours (eight MMS, 20 USS). 28 (16 MMS, 12 USS) of 58 (48.3%; 95% CI 35.0-61.8) of the invasive cancers were stage I/II, with no difference (p=0.396) in stage distribution between the groups. A further 13 (five MMS, eight USS) women developed primary ovarian cancer during the year after the screen. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values for all primary ovarian and tubal cancers were 89.4%, 99.8%, and 43.3% for MMS, and 84.9%, 98.2%, and 5.3% for USS, respectively. For primary invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancers, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values were 89.5%, 99.8%, and 35.1% for MMS, and 75.0%, 98.2%, and 2.8% for USS, respectively. There was a significant difference in specificity (p<0.0001) but not sensitivity between the two screening groups for both primary ovarian and tubal cancers as well as primary epithelial invasive ovarian and tubal cancers. INTERPRETATION: The sensitivity of the MMS and USS screening strategies is encouraging. Specificity was higher in the MMS than in the USS group, resulting in lower rates of repeat testing and surgery. This in part reflects the high prevalence of benign adnexal abnormalities and the more frequent detection of borderline tumours in the USS group. The prevalence screen has established that the screening strategies are feasible. The results of ongoing screening are awaited so that the effect of screening on mortality can be determined.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials
Senn, S. (1994) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780131703 · Cited by 503
Recruitment to multicentre trials—lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study
Menon, U., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Ryan, A., Sharma, A., Burnell, M., Hallett, R., Lewis, S., Lopez, A., Godfrey, K., Oram, D., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a2079 · Cited by 151
Self-citationTimmerman, D., Verrelst, H., Bourne, T. H., De Moor, B., Collins, W. P., Vergote, I., & Vandewalle, J. (1999) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13010017.x · Cited by 134
Cited by
Crosby, D., Bhatia, S., Brindle, K. M., Coussens, L. M., Dive, C., Emberton, M., Esener, S., Fitzgerald, R. C., Gambhir, S. S., Kuhn, P., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aay9040 · Cited by 1,379
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
Jacobs, I. J., Menon, U., Ryan, A., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Burnell, M., Kalsi, J. K., Amso, N. N., Apostolidou, S., Benjamin, E., Cruickshank, D., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01224-6 · Cited by 1,048
Self-citationMenon, U., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Burnell, M., Singh, N., Ryan, A., Karpinskyj, C., Carlino, G., Taylor, J., Massingham, S. K., Raikou, M., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00731-5 · Cited by 730
Self-citationVan Calster, B., Van Hoorde, K., Valentin, L., Testa, A. C., Fischerova, D., Van Holsbeke, C., Savelli, L., Franchi, D., Epstein, E., Kaijser, J., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g5920 · Cited by 510
Metadata
- Authors
- Menon, U., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Hallett, R., Ryan, A., Burnell, M., Sharma, A., Lewis, S., Davies, S., Philpott, S., Lopes, A., Godfrey, K., Oram, D., Herod, J., Williamson, K., Seif, M. W., Scott, I., Mould, T., Woolas, R., Murdoch, J., Dobbs, S., Amso, N. N., Leeson, S., Cruickshank, D., Mcguire, A., Campbell, S., Fallowfield, L., Singh, N., Dawnay, A., Skates, S. J., Parmar, M., & Jacobs, I.
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 327-340
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108787610
- Cited by
- 829
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 94.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 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). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70026-9
- The paper
- Menon, U., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Hallett, R., Ryan, A., Burnell, M., Sharma, A., Lewis, S., Davies, S., Philpott, S., Lopes, A., Godfrey, K., Oram, D., Herod, J., Williamson, K., Seif, M. W., Scott, I., Mould, T., Woolas, R., Murdoch, J., . . . Jacobs, I. (2009). 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). The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70026-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.