ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026
Can ovarian cancer screening work? A secondary analysis of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS; 2001-2020) showed no reduction in disease mortality in its primary intervention arm using multimodal screening (MMS) with longitudinal Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125) and transvaginal ultrasound. Whether this null result reflects the stop-screen design, screening performance, or ovarian cancer natural history remains unclear.
methodsUsing individual-level screening and diagnosis data from the MMS arm, we estimated ovarian cancer natural history, focusing on high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC), the most common and lethal subtype. We then simulated trial outcomes under (1) continued screening beyond the trial screening interval and (2) high sensitivity for early-stage detection over an extended time period.
resultsThe estimated window for detecting early-stage HGSC under MMS was <6 months. Continued screening yielded at most a 15% relative mortality reduction. Achieving a ≥20% mortality reduction required extending the detectable early-stage window to 1 year and attaining ≥70% sensitivity during this period.
conclusionCurrent screening modalities offer a very limited opportunity to intercept HGSC at an early stage. Clinically effective ovarian cancer screening will require first- and second-line tests capable of detecting HGSC substantially earlier in its natural history.
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.