Screening for Ovarian Cancer—More Hype Than Hope?


FREE PREVIEW. AAFP members and paid subscribers: Log in to get free access. All others: Purchase online access.

FREE PREVIEW. Purchase online access to read the full version of this article.

Am Fam Physician. 2016 Jun 1;93(11):906.

  Related article: Diagnosis and Management of Ovarian Cancer

  Related editorial: What Women and Their Physicians Need to Know About the UKCTOCS Study and Ovarian Cancer Screening

Screening for ovarian cancer is reminiscent of screening for prostate cancer: Although we have tests that seem like they should work to reduce mortality (e.g., cancer antigen [CA] 125 measurement plus ultrasonography, prostate-specific antigen testing), unfortunately we are not there yet. Publication of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)1 generated a lot of publicity because on the surface it appeared to deliver on the promise of effective screening for ovarian cancer. The protocol consisted of the rigorous application of a risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) rather than simply relying on the results of CA 125 testing with a single cutoff value for an abnormal result. From the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, we already know that using a single cutoff value does not reduce mortality.2 Although some findings seemed promising in the current study, they ultimately did not show convincing effectiveness. Shortcomings included the following:

(1) The reduction in ovarian cancer mortality was not statistically significant.

(2) The reduction was not constant over time.

(3) Only one-fourth of the patients were followed long enough to begin to see a possible benefit.

(4) The effect of screening on all-cause mortality was not reported.

(5) The ROCA is a proprietary algorithm patented by the investigators.

The final point is potentially problematic because physicians and patients, inspired by this trial's publicity, might embark on a screening program but not employ the precise protocol used in the study. However, this protocol has been commercialized (at $295 per use) and promoted to the public in an unqualified way.

In keeping with the principles of the Choosing Wisely campaign, physicians and patients would do well to avoid the pitfalls of overscreening and wait for results that promise more hope than hype.

editor's note: Dr. Siwek is editor of American Family Physician.

Address correspondence to Jay Siwek, MD, at siwekj@georgetown.edu. Reprints are not available from the author.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.


1. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial [published correction appears in Lancet. 2016;387(10022):944]. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):945–956.

2. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al.; PLCO Project Team. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295–2303.


Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions

CME Quiz

More in AFP

Editor's Collections

Related Content

More in Pubmed


Oct 15, 2016

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue

Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article