Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34207611›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Could Ovarian Cancer Prediction Models Improve the Triage of Symptomatic Women in Primary Care? A Modelling Study Using Routinely Collected Data.

Garth Funston, Gary Abel, Emma J Crosbie, Willie Hamilton, Fiona M Walter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Garth FunstonThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
Gary AbelUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 1TX, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2231-5161
Emma J CrosbieGynaecological Oncology Research Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-8630
Willie HamiltonUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 1TX, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1611-1373
Fiona M WalterThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476
University of Exeter · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385NIHR School for Primary Care Research FR17 424
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CA125 is widely used as an initial investigation in women presenting with symptoms of possible ovarian cancer. We sought to develop CA125-based diagnostic prediction models and to explore potential implications of implementing model-based thresholds for further investigation in primary care. This retrospective cohort study used routinely collected primary care and cancer registry data from symptomatic, CA125-tested women in England (2011-2014). A total of 29,962 women were included, of whom 279 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Logistic regression was used to develop two models to estimate ovarian cancer probability: Model 1 consisted of age and CA125 level; Model 2 incorporated further risk factors. Model discrimination (AUC) was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation. The sensitivity and specificity of various model risk thresholds (≥1% to ≥3%) were compared with that of the current CA125 cut-off (≥35 U/mL). Model 1 exhibited excellent discrimination (AUC: 0.94) on cross-validation. The inclusion of additional variables (Model 2) did not improve performance. At a risk threshold of ≥1%, Model 1 exhibited greater sensitivity (86.4% vs. 78.5%) but lower specificity (89.1% vs. 94.5%) than CA125 (≥35 U/mL). Applying the ≥1% model threshold to the cohort in place of the current CA125 cut-off, 1 in every 74 additional women identified had ovarian cancer. Following external validation, Model 1 could be used as part of a 'risk-based triage' system in which women at high risk of undiagnosed ovarian cancer are selected for urgent specialist investigation, while women at 'low risk but not no risk' are offered non-urgent investigation or interval CA125 re-testing. Such an approach has the potential to expedite ovarian cancer diagnosis, but further research is needed to evaluate the clinical impact and health-economic implications.

Indexed as

CA125cancer antigen 125diagnostic pathwaysdiagnostic prediction modelearly detectionovarian cancerprimary carerisk assessmenttriage

Identifiers

PMID34207611
PMCPMC8228892
OpenAlexW3171206740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.