Cited by 19BRCA gene mutations in cancerOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The avoiding late diagnosis of ovarian cancer (ALDO) project; a pilot national surveillance programme for women with pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2

Open access

Abstract

Background: Our study aimed to establish ‘real-world’ performance and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer (OC) surveillance in women with pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 variants who defer risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Methods: Our study recruited 875 female BRCA1/2-heterozygotes at 13 UK centres and via an online media campaign, with 767 undergoing at least one 4-monthly surveillance test with the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) test. Surveillance performance was calculated with modelling of occult cancers detected at RRSO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using Markov population cohort simulation. Results: Our study identified 8 OCs during 1277 women screen years: 2 occult OCs at RRSO (both stage 1a), and 6 screen-detected; 3 of 6 (50%) were ≤stage 3a and 5 of 6 (83%) were completely surgically cytoreduced. Modelled sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) for OC were 87.5% (95% CI, 47.3 to 99.7), 99.9% (99.9–100), 75% (34.9–96.8) and 99.9% (99.9–100), respectively. The predicted number of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained by surveillance was 0.179 with an ICER cost-saving of -£102,496/QALY. Conclusion: OC surveillance for women deferring RRSO in a ‘real-world’ setting is feasible and demonstrates similar performance to research trials; it down-stages OC, leading to a high complete cytoreduction rate and is cost-saving in the UK National Health Service (NHS) setting. While RRSO remains recommended management, ROCA-based surveillance may be considered for female BRCA-heterozygotes who are deferring such surgery.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jmg-2022-108741

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the ALDO study, surveillance for women who opt to defer RRSO in a real-world setting is feasible with a sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 99.9%, positive predictive value of 75.0%, and negative predictive value of 99.9% for detecting ovarian cancer.

    “Authors concluded that surveillance for women who opt to defer RRSO in a “real-world” setting is feasible with a sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 99.9%, a positive predictive value of 75.0%, and a negative predictive value of 99.9% for detecting ovarian cancer [44].”

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70476-4 · DOI
  2. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105792 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.005 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1001/jama.2017.7112 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.06.070 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/s41416-019-0446-1 · DOI
  7. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107356 · DOI
  8. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0171 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03257.x · DOI
  10. 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.9330 · DOI
  11. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2750 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.10.495 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.08.034 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00731-5 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.6905 · DOI
  16. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2497 · DOI
  17. 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001541 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Philpott, S., Raikou, M., Manchanda, R., Lockley, M., Singh, N., Scott, M., Evans, D. G., Adlard, J., Ahmed, M., Edmondson, R., Woodward, E. R., Lamnisos, A., Balega, J., Brady, A. F., Sharma, A., Izatt, L., Kulkarni, A., Tripathi, V., Solomons, J. S., Hayes, K., Hanson, H., Snape, K., Side, L., Skates, S., McGuire, A., & Rosenthal, A. N.
Affiliations
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Piraeus (GR)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Barts Health NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Chapel Allerton Hospital (GB)
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GB)
  • The Eve Appeal (GB)
  • Birmingham City Hospital (GB)
  • London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • University Hospital of Wales (GB)
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
Rosenthal, Adam N
Venue
Journal of Medical Genetics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-11-01
Volume
60
Issue
5
Pages
440-449
ISSN
  • 0022-2593 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-6244
OpenAlex
W4307826988
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • North Central London Cancer Alliance
  • Abcodia Ltd
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
BRCA1, BRCA2, germline pathogenic variants, delayed surgery, occult cancer detection, cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, cytoreduction, hereditary ovarian cancer
MeSH terms
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Female, Germ Cells, United Kingdom, Humans, Mutation, Ovarian Neoplasms, Ovariectomy, Population Surveillance, State Medicine, BRCA1 Protein, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, BRCA2 Protein, Delayed Diagnosis, Salpingectomy

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