Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29222541›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2018

Estimating Cost-effectiveness of a Multimodal Ovarian Cancer Screening Program in the United States: Secondary Analysis of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

Haley A Moss, Andrew Berchuck, Megan L Neely, Evan R Myers, Laura J Havrilesky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Hereditary Ovarian Cancer: Towards a Cost-Effective Prevention Strategy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Identification of CD8Frontiers in genetics · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Biomarkers and Strategies for Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer.Hematology/oncology clinics of North America · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Haley A MossDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Andrew BerchuckDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Megan L NeelyDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Evan R MyersDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Laura J HavrileskyDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) is the largest randomized clinical trial to evaluate screening's impact on ovarian cancer mortality, assigning women to multimodal screening (MMS) with serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) interpreted using a risk algorithm. If the MMS screening method is eventually shown to reduce mortality and be cost-effective, then it may be accepted by the medical community as a feasible screening tool.

objectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of an MMS screening program in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA Markov simulation model was constructed using data from UKCTOCS to compare MMS with no screening in the United States. Screening would begin at the age of 50 years for women in the general population. Published estimates of the long-term effect of MMS screening on ovarian cancer mortality and the trial's published hazard ratios were used to simulate mortality estimates up to 40 years from start of screening. Base-case costs included CA-125, ultrasound, and false-positive work-up results, in addition to a risk algorithm cost estimate of $100. The utility and costs of ovarian cancer treatment were incorporated into the model.

interventionsScreening strategies varied by costs of the algorithm and treatment for advanced ovarian cancer, rates of screening compliance, ovarian cancer incidence, and extrapolation of ovarian cancer mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and mortality reduction of ovarian cancer screening.

resultsMultimodal screening is both more expensive and more effective in reducing ovarian cancer mortality over a lifetime than no screening. After accounting for uncertainty in the underlying parameters, screening women starting at age 50 years with MMS is cost-effective 70% of the time, when decision makers are willing to pay $150 000 per QALY. Screening reduced mortality by 15%, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from $106 187 (95% CI, $97 496-$127 793) to $155 256 (95% CI, $150 369-$198 567). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Ovarian cancer screening is potentially cost-effective in the United States depending on final significance of mortality reduction and cost of the CA-125 risk algorithm. These results are limited by uncertainty around the effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality beyond the 11 years of UKCTOCS.

Indexed as

AgedAlgorithmsCA-125 AntigenCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialCooperative BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicMultimodal ImagingOvarian NeoplasmsCA-125 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID29222541
PMCPMC5838595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.