ArticleBMC medicine2016
Cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer amongst postmenopausal women: a model-based economic evaluation.
Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cost Consequence Analysis of Seven Diagnostic Strategies for Ovarian Cancer: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of CA125- and age-informed risk-based triage for ovarian cancer detection in primary care.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Accuracy of the risk of malignancy index-I in diagnosing ovarian malignancy in menopausal women.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023Article
- Hereditary Ovarian Cancer: Towards a Cost-Effective Prevention Strategy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Current and Emerging Methods for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Morphological parameters of ovarian masses and accuracy of the risk of malignancy index in diagnosing ovarian malignancy.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2022Article
- Changes in Sex Steroids and Relation With Menopausal Complaints in Women Undergoing Risk-reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2022Article
- How Uncertain is the Survival Extrapolation? A Study of the Impact of Different Parametric Survival Models on Extrapolated Uncertainty About Hazard Functions, Lifetime Mean Survival and Cost Effectiveness.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
- Generalized Linear Models for Flexible Parametric Modeling of the Hazard Function.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- The Curve of Optimal Sample Size (COSS): A Graphical Representation of the Optimal Sample Size from a Value of Information Analysis.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Article
- Erratum to: Cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer amongst postmenopausal women: a model-based economic evaluation.BMC medicine · 2017Article
- The Impact of Alternative Specifications of Uncertainty Relating to Extrapolation in Decision Models.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) was the biggest ovarian cancer screening trial to date. A non-significant effect of screening on ovarian cancer was reported, but the authors noted a potential delayed effect of screening, and suggested the need for four years further follow-up. There are no UK-based cost-effectiveness analyses of ovarian cancer screening. Hence we assessed the lifetime outcomes associated with, and the cost-effectiveness of, screening for ovarian cancer in the UK, along with the value of further research.
methodsWe performed a model-based economic evaluation. Effectiveness data were taken from UKCTOCS, which considered strategies of multimodal screening (MMS), ultrasound screening (USS) and no screening. We conducted systematic reviews to identify the remaining model inputs, and performed a rigorous and transparent prospective evaluation of different methods for extrapolating the effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality. We considered costs to the UK healthcare system and measured effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We used value of information methods to estimate the value of further research.
resultsOver a lifetime, MMS and USS were estimated to be both more expensive and more effective than no screening. USS was dominated by MMS, being both more expensive and less effective. Compared with no screening, MMS cost on average £419 more (95% confidence interval £255 to £578), and generated 0.047 more QALYs (0.002 to 0.088). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing MMS with no screening was £8864 per QALY (£2600 to £51,576). Alternative extrapolation methods increased the ICER, with the highest value being £36,769 (£13,888 to dominated by no screening). Using the UKCTOCS trial horizon, both MMS and USS were dominated by no screening, as they produced fewer QALYs at a greater cost. The value of research into eliminating all uncertainty in long-term effectiveness was estimated to be worth up to £20 million, or approximately £5 million for four years follow-up.
conclusionsScreening for ovarian cancer with MMS is both more effective and more expensive than not screening. Compared to national willingness to pay thresholds, lifetime cost-effectiveness is promising, but there remains considerable uncertainty regarding extrapolated long-term effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.