Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2025
Estimating the Opportunity for Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer Using Individual-Patient Data from a Large Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can ovarian cancer screening work? A secondary analysis of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- World Ovarian Cancer Day: unravelling the molecular anatomy of a silent killer.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening did not detect a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality with either multimodal screening (MMS) or transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS) compared with no screening. The trial data provide an invaluable resource to quantify the opportunity for interception in ovarian cancer.
methodsWe used Bayesian inference to estimate ovarian cancer natural history based on individual screening and cancer diagnosis records from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, a randomized controlled ovarian cancer screening trial conducted in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The trial included 202,638 women ages 50 to 74 years with no family history of ovarian cancer, randomized in a 1:1:2 ratio to annual MMS (serum CA125 interpreted using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm), annual USS, or no screening. The current analysis included 199,499 women, with 674,806 screens and 2,025 cancer diagnoses.
resultsAmong high-grade serous cancers (HGSC), the estimated preclinical detectable phase was 1.7 years (95% credible interval, 1.3-2.2), compared with 7.8 years (95% credible interval, 5.7-10.6) for non-HGSCs. The preclinical detectable phase depended on screening modality: for HGSCs, it was longer in the MMS arm (2.2 years) compared with the USS arm (0.8 years), whereas for non-HGSCs, it was shorter in the MMS arm (2.7 years) compared with the USS arm (8.2 years).
conclusionsThe interception opportunity for ovarian cancer strongly depends on histologic subtype and screening modality. IMPACT: Achieving a clinically significant benefit of ovarian cancer early detection will require prolonging the interception window through judicious combination of first- and second-line tests.
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.