Skip Navigation Links.
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2015, 3(1), 1-8
DOI: 10.12691/AJCMR-3-1-1
Review Article

Ovarian Cancer Screening: the Role and Drawbacks of Ultrasonography and Feasibility in Low Resource Settings

Chukwuemeka Anthony Iyoke1, , Osaheni LuckyLawani2, George Onyemaechi Ugwu1, Euzebus Chinonye Ezugwu1, Leonard Ogbonna Ajah2 and Robinson Chukwudi Onoh2

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Ituku-Ozalla, Enugu, Nigeria

2Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki, Nigeria

Pub. Date: January 26, 2015
Full Text PDF

Cite this paper

Chukwuemeka Anthony Iyoke, Osaheni LuckyLawani, George Onyemaechi Ugwu, Euzebus Chinonye Ezugwu, Leonard Ogbonna Ajah and Robinson Chukwudi Onoh. Ovarian Cancer Screening: the Role and Drawbacks of Ultrasonography and Feasibility in Low Resource Settings. American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2015; 3(1):1-8. doi: 10.12691/AJCMR-3-1-1

Abstract

Context: Although there have been reports of increasing incidence of ovarian cancer in developing countries, no developing country has been involved in current trials of ovarian cancer screening. Aim: To review the evolution of the role and drawbacks of ultrasonography in ovarian cancer screening and the feasibility of implementing current potential screening strategies inlow resource settings. Methods: An electronic literature search for all articles written in English language on ovarian cancer screening from 1960-2013. Information from appropriate articles were collated and analysed for content. Results: Ultrasound was used as the first-line or second-line test in the most popular multicentre multimodal trials of ovarian cancer screening. It has a high sensitivity but a low specificity. The low specificity of ultrasound screening necessitates the use of further measures to aid the triaging of ultrasound positive cases, which add to the overall cost of screening. There is yet scant evidence of the cost effectiveness of multimodal screening for ovarian cancer. Current potential strategies for ultrasound-based screening for ovarian cancer demand the training and employment of large numbers of highly skilled personnel as well as the acquisition of high resolution scanners and technology for biochemical assay of tumour markers. Conclusion: Transvaginal ultrasonographyhas evolved into a potentialtool for ovarian cancer screening and ovarian cancer screening strategies based on CA125 assays and ultrasonography would demand substantial resources. If and when reduction in mortality and cost-effectiveness of this approach to screening are proven, itmay not be feasible in developing countries.

Keywords

transvaginal ultrasound, ovarian cancer, screening, CA125, low-resource countries

Copyright

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]  Van Nagel JR, Hoff JT. Transvaginal ultrasonography in ovarian cancer screening: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health, 2014: 6 25-33.
 
[2]  Menon U, Griffin M, Gentry-Maharaj A. Ovarian cancer screening—current status, future directions. Gynecologic Oncology, 2014; 132: 490-495.
 
[3]  Rosenthal A.N., Fraser L., Manchanda R. Results of annual screening in phase I of the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study highlight the need for strict adherence to screening schedule. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 49-57.
 
[4]  Rosenthal A.N., Fraser L., Philpott S. Presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology. Chicago,IL. 2013. Results of 4-monthly screening in the UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study (UK FOCSS Phase 2).
 
[5]  Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jun 19; 156 (12): 880-91.
 
[6]  DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ. Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for the detection of early ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 1997; 65: 408-414.
 
[7]  van Nagell Jr JR, Higgins PV, Donaldson ES et al. Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for ovarian cancer; a report of first 1000 cases. The Lancet, 1990; 65: 573-577.
 
[8]  van Nagell Jr JR, DePriest PD, Puls LE et al. Ovarian cancer screening in asymptomatic postmenopausal women by transvaginal sonography. Cancer, 1996; 68: 458-462.
 
[9]  van Nagell Jr JR, DePriest PD, Reedy MB et al. The efficiency of transvaginal sonographic screening in asymptomatic women at risk of ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 2000; 77: 350-356.
 
[10]  van Nagell Jr JR, Depriest PD, Ueland FR. Ovarian cancer screening with annual transvaginal sonography. Cancer, 2007; 109: 1887-96.
 
[11]  Greenlee RT, Kessel B, Williams CR et al. Prevalence, incidence and natural history of simple cysts among women more than 50 years old in a large cancer screening trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 2010; 202: 373e1-9.
 
[12]  Sasaki H, Oda M, Ohmura M. Et al. Follow up of women with simple ovarian cysts detected by transvaginal sonography in the Tokyo metropolitan area. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1999; 106: 415-420.
 
[13]  Sharma A, Apostolidou S, Burnell M, Campbell S, Habib M, Gentry-Maharaj A, et al. Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women with ultrasound-detected ovarian masses: a prospective cohort study within the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2012; 40: 338-344.
 
[14]  Elder J, A. Long, R. Miller, W. Ueland, C. DeSimone, J. Hoff, R. Kryscio, J. van Nagell Jr., E. Pavlik, F. Ueland Monitoring ovarian tumours using serial ultrasound with tumour morphology index. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 130: e94.
 
[15]  Powell DE, Puls L, van Nagel jr J. Current concepts in epithelial ovarian tumours: does benign to malignant transformation occur? Human Pathology, 1992; 23: 846-845.
 
[16]  Funkhniser J, Hunter KK, Thompson NJ. The diagnostic value of cul-de-sac aspiration in the detection of ovarian carcinoma. Acta Cytology, 1975; 19: 538-541.
 
[17]  McGowan L, Stein D, Miller N. Cul-de-sac aspiration for diagnostic cytology. American journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1966; 96: 413-417.
 
[18]  Oram DH, Jeyarajah AR. The role of ultrasound and tumour markers in the early detection of ovarian cancer. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1994; 101: 939-945
 
[19]  Meire HB, Farrant P, Guka T. Distinction of benign from malignant ovarian cysts by ultrasound. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1978; 85 (12): 893-899.
 
[20]  Donald I. The use of ultrasonics in the diagnosis of abdominal swellings. British Medical Journal, 1963; ii: 1154-5.
 
[21]  Bast RC Jr, Feeney M, Lazarus H et al. Reactivity of a monoclonal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 1981; 68(5): 1331-1337.
 
[22]  Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicentre study in Japan. International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer, 2008; 18: 414-420.
 
[23]  Jacobs I, Skates S, MacDonald N et al. Screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Lancet, 1999; 353: 1207-1209.
 
[24]  Moore GR, MacLaughlan S, Bast RC Jr et al. 2010. Current state of biomarker development for clinical application in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 2010; 116 (2): 240-245.
 
[25]  Skates S, Menon U, MacDonald N et al. Calculation of risk of ovarian cancer from serial CA125 values for preclinical detection in postmenopausal women. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2003; 21: 206-210.
 
[26]  Menon U, Skates SJ, Rosenthal AN et al. Prospective study using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm to screen for ovarian cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005; 23 (31): 7919-7926.
 
[27]  Badgwell D, Lu Z, Cole L et al. Urinary mesothelin provides greater sensitivity for early stage ovarian cancer than serum mesothelin, urinary hCG free beta subunit, urinary hCG beta core fragment. Gynecologic Oncology, 2007; 106 (3): 490-497.
 
[28]  Buys SS, Partridge E, Greene MH et al. Ovarian cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: Finding from the initial screen of a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2005; 193: 1630-9.
 
[29]  Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. JAMA, 2011; 305 (22): 295-2303.
 
[30]  Menon U. Ovarian cancer screening has no effect on disease-specific mortality: commentary on the mortality results of the PLCO trial. Evidence-based Medicine.
 
[31]  Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallet R et al. Sensitivity and Specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncology, 2009; 10: 327-40.
 
[32]  Campbell S, Goswamy R, Goessens L Whitehead M. Real time ultrasonography for determination of ovarian morphology and volume. The Lancet, 1982: 425-426.
 
[33]  Goswamy RK, Campbell S, Royston J et al. Ovarian size in postmenopausal women. BJOG: An international journal of obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1988; 195: 795-801.
 
[34]  Andolf E, Svalenius E, Astedt B. Ultrasonography for early detection of ovarian carcinoma. BJOG: An international journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1986; 93: 1286-1289.
 
[35]  Jacobs I, Stabile I, Bridges J. 1988. Multimodal screening for ovarian cancer. The Lancet, 1988: 268-72.
 
[36]  Campbell S, Royston P, Bhan V, Whitehead MI and Collins WP. Novel screening strategies for early ovarian cancer by transabdominal ultrasonography. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 1990; 97: 304-311.
 
[37]  DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ. Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for the detection of early ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 1997; 65: 408-414.
 
[38]  van NagelI Jr JR, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ, DePriest PD. Ovarian Cancer Screening. Cancer 1995; 76:2086-91. Van Nagel.
 
[39]  van Nagell Jr JR., DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ. Ovarian Cancer Screening. Cancer 1993; 71: 1523-8.
 
[40]  Clark CH, Yip C, Badgwell D. Proteomic biomarkers Apoprotein A1, Truncated Transthyretin and connective Tissue Antigen Protein III enhance the sensitivity of CA125 for detecting early stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecologic oncology, 2011; 122 (3): 548-553.
 
[41]  Granberg S, Wikland M, Janson I. Macroscopic characterisation of ovarian tumours and the relation to histological diagnosis: criteria to be used for ultrasound evaluation. Gynecologic Oncology, 35: 139-44.
 
[42]  42. DePriest PD, Shenson BS, Fried A. A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 1993; 51: 7-11.
 
[43]  Depriest PD, Varner E, Powell J. 1994. The efficacy of a sonographic morphology index in identifying ovarian cancer: a multi-institutional study. Gynecologic Oncology, 1994; 55: 174-178.
 
[44]  Sassone AM, Timor-Tritsch IE, Artner A, et al. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: Evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1991; 78: 70-76.
 
[45]  Lerner JP, Timor-Tritsch IE, Federman A, Abramovich G. Transvaginal ultrasound characterization of ovarian masses with an improved weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1994, 170; 81-85.
 
[46]  Ferrazzi E, Zanetta G, Dordoni D, Berlanda N, Mezzopane R, Lissoni G. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1997; 10: 192-197.
 
[47]  Alcazar JC, Jurado M. Using logistic regression model to predict malignancy of adnexal masses based on menopausal status, ultrasound morphology and color Doppler findings. Gynecologic Oncology, 1998; 69: 146-150.
 
[48]  Singh U, Neera K, Ekta N. Evaluation of new scoring system to differentiate between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 2006; 56 (2): 162-165.
 
[49]  Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BJOG: An international Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1990; 97: 922-929.
 
[50]  Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, Nustad K et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA-125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the preoperative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol, 1996; 103: 826-31.
 
[51]  Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk of malignancy index to evaluate potential cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol, 1999; 93: 448-52.
 
[52]  Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol, 2009; 144: 163-7.
 
[53]  Aktürk E, Karaca RE, Alanbay I, Dede M, Karaşahin E, Yenen MC, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses. J Gynecol Oncol Vol. 22, No. 3:177-182.
 
[54]  Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicentre study by the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005; 23(34): 8794-8801.
 
[55]  Hata K, Akiba S, Hata T, Miyazaki K. A multivariate logistic regression analysis in predicting malignancy for patients with ovarian tumours. Gynecol Oncol, 1998; 68: 146-150.
 
[56]  Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH et al. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology; 1997; 10: 41-47.
 
[57]  Timmerman D, Verrelst H, Bourne T H, De Moor B, Collins WP, Vergote I, Vandewalle J. Artificial neural network models for the preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999; 13: 17-25.
 
[58]  Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Valentin L, Testa AC, Ferrazzi E, Dimou I, Lu C, Moerman P, Van Huffel S, Vergote I, Timmerman D. External Validation of Mathematical Models to Distinguish Between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Tumours: A Multicenter Study by the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Group. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13: 4440-4447.
 
[59]  Andolf E, Jorgensen C. Cystic lesions in elderly women, diagnosed by Ultrasound. Brit J ObstetGynaecol, 1989; 96: 10761079.
 
[60]  Sasaki H, Oda M, Ohmura M. Et al. Follow up of women with simple ovarian cysts detected by transvaginal sonography in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol, 1999; 106: 415-420.
 
[61]  Greenlee RT, Kessel B, Williams CR et al. Prevalence, incidence and natural history of simple cysts among women more than 50 years old in a large cancer screening trial. Am J Obstet Gynaecol, 2010; 202: 373e1-9.
 
[62]  Sharma A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M et al. 2011. Assessing the malignant potential of ovarian inclusion cysts in postmenopausal women within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a prospective cohort study. British journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 2011.
 
[63]  Saunders BA, Podzielinski I, Ware RA. Risk of malignancy in sonographically confirmed septated cystic ovarian tumours. Gynecologic Oncology, 2010; 118: 278-282.
 
[64]  Hartge P, Hayes R, Reding D et al. Complex ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women are not associated with ovarian cancer risk factors. Preliminary data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial. American journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2000; 183: 1232-7.
 
[65]  Sfakianos GP, Havrilesky LJ. A Review of Cost-effectiveness Studies in Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Control. 2011; 18 (1): 59-64.
 
[66]  Drescher CW, Hawley S, Thorpe JD, et al. Impact of Screening Test Performance and Cost on Mortality Reduction and Cost-effectiveness of Multimodal Ovarian Cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res 2012; 5: 1015-1024.
 
[67]  Urban N, Drescher C, Etzioni R, et al. Use of a stochastic simulation model to identify an efficient protocol for ovarian cancer screening. Control Clin Trials. 1997; 18 (3): 251-270.
 
[68]  68. Skates SJ, Singer DE. Quantifying the potential benefit of CA 125 screening for ovarian cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44 (4-5): 365-380.
 
[69]  The Economist Intelligence Unit. Breakaway: the global burden of cancer-challenges and opportunities. The Economist, London, 2009.
 
[70]  Popkin BM. The nutrition transition in low income countries: an emerging crisis. Nutr Rev, 1994; 52, 285-298.
 
[71]  Martorell1 R, Kettel Khan L, Hughes ML, Grummer-Strawn LM. Obesity in women from developing countries. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2000; 54, 247-252.