Search

Background Vulvar cancer is a rare disease and despite broad adoption of sentinel lymph node mapping to assess groin metastases, inguino-femoral lymph node dissection still plays a role in the management of this disease. Inguino-femoral lymph node dissection is associated with high morbidity, and limited research exists to guide the best surgical approach. Objective To determine international practice patterns in key aspects of the inguino-femoral lymph node dissection technique and provide data to guide future research. Methods A survey addressing six key domains of practice patterns in performing inguino-femoral lymph node dissection was distributed internationally to gynecologic oncology surgeons between April and October 2020. The survey was distributed using the British Gynecological Cancer Society, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, authors' direct links, the UK Audit and Research in Gynecology Oncology group, and Twitter. Results A total of 259 responses were received from 18 countries. The majority (236/259, 91.1%) of respondents reported performing a modified oblique incision, routinely dissecting the superficial and deep inguino-femoral lymph nodes (137/185, 74.1%) with sparing of the saphenous vein (227/258, 88%). Most respondents did not routinely use compression dressings/underwear (169/252 (67.1%), used prophylactic antibiotics at the time of surgery only (167/257, 65%), and closed the skin with sutures (192 74.4%). Also, a drain is placed at the time of surgery by 243/259 (93.8%) surgeons, with most practitioners (144/243, 59.3%) waiting for drainage to be less than 30-50 mL in 24 hours before removal; most respondents (66.3%) routinely discharge patients with drain(s) in situ. Conclusion Our study showed that most surgeons perform a modified oblique incision, dissect the superficial and deep inguino-femoral lymph nodes, and spare the saphenous vein when performing groin lymphadenectomy. This survey has demonstrated significant variability in inguino-femoral lymph node dissection in cases of vulvar cancer among gynecologic oncology surgeons internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify the most commonly used methods for weight reduction in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) utilized by obstetricians and gynaecologists in the United Kingdom (UK). Study Design: Permission was sought from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to conduct an electronic survey of all consultants practising in the UK. The questionnaire was anonymous and an electronic link was sent via email to the 1140 consultants whose details were provided by the RCOG. A 27-item questionnaire was developed. The variables evaluated were first-line methods of weight reduction used, proportion of women with PCOS seen that were obese, whether the patients had tried other weight reduction methods before seeking help, the optimal dietary advice and optimal composition, the optimal duration and frequency of exercise suggested, BMI used for suggesting weight loss, percentage of women in whom weight loss worked, length of time allowed prior to suggesting another method, methods considered most effective by patients, use of metformin for weight loss, criteria used for prescribing metformin, first-line anti-obesity drugs preferred if any, second- and third-line methods used, referral to other specialists and criteria for referral for bariatric surgery. Responses were categorical and are reported as proportions. Results: One hundred and seven (9.4%) consultants responded to the questionnaire. One hundred and four (97%) provided advice on diet and 101 (94%) advice on exercise as their first-line strategy for weight management. Fifty-one (47.7%) stated that they provided specific information on an optimal dietary intake, 53 (49.9%) on the optimal dietary composition and 61 (57%) on the optimal duration and frequency of exercise per week. The commonest second-line methods used were anti-obesity drugs and metformin and the most popular third-line management options were anti-obesity drugs and bariatric surgery. Conclusions: The results suggest that the information provided to women with PCOS on weight management is variable, and highlight the need for specific guidelines and further research on weight management in women with this condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers. In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50–74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov -NCT00058032. 1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms. Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial. [Display omitted] • High alert ovarian cancer symptoms based on reports by clinically diagnosed women are associated with poorer outcomes. • In UKCTOCS, we explore prospectively preclinical symptoms in women detected by screening earlier in the natural history. • In high grade serous ovarian cancer, the symptom profile was different between women with preclinical and clinical disease. • Women with preclinical early stage high grade serous ovarian cancer reported more gastrointestinal and systemic symptoms. • Key symptoms were change in bowel habits, dyspepsia and tiredness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: The increase in the worldwide incidence of endometrial cancer relates to rising obesity, falling fertility, and the ageing of the population. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) is a possible screening test, but there have been no large-scale studies. We report the performance of TVS screening in a large cohort. Methods: We did a nested case-control study of postmenopausal women who underwent TVS in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) following recruitment between April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005. Endometrial thickness and endometrial abnormalities were recorded, and follow-up, through national registries and a postal questionnaire, documented the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Our primary outcome measure was endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Performance characteristics of endometrial thickness and abnormalities for detection of endometrial cancer within 1 year of TVS were calculated. Epidemiological variables were used to develop a logistic regression model and assess a screening strategy for women at higher risk. Our study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032, and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN22488978. Findings: 48 230 women underwent TVS in the UKCTOCS prevalence screen. 9078 women were ineligible because they had undergone a hysterectomy and 2271 because their endometrial thickness had not been recorded; however, 157 of these women had an endometrial abnormality on TVS and were included in the analysis. Median follow-up was 5·11 years (IQR 4·05–5·95). 136 women with endometrial cancer or AEH within 1 year of TVS were included in our primary analysis. The optimum endometrial thickness cutoff for endometrial cancer or AEH was 5·15 mm, with sensitivity of 80·5% (95% CI 72·7–86·8) and specificity of 86·2% (85·8–86·6). Sensitivity and specificity at a 5 mm or greater cutoff were 80·5% (72·7–86·8) and 85·7% (85·4–86·2); for women with a 5 mm or greater cutoff plus endometrial abnormalities, the sensitivity and specificity were 85·3% (78·2–90·8) and 80·4% (80·0–80·8), respectively. For a cutoff of 10 mm or greater, sensitivity and specificity were 54·1% (45·3–62·8) and 97·2% (97·0–97·4). When our analysis was restricted to the 96 women with endometrial cancer or AEH who reported no symptoms of postmenopausal bleeding at the UKCTOCS scan before diagnosis and had an endometrial thickness measurement available, a cutoff of 5 mm achieved a sensitivity of 77·1% (67·8–84·3) and specificity of 85·8% (85·7–85·9). The logistic regression model identified 25% of the population as at high risk and 39·5% of endometrial cancer or AEH cases were identified within this high risk group. In this high-risk population, a cutoff at 6·75 mm achieved sensitivity of 84·3% (71·4–93·0) and specificity of 89·9% (89·3–90·5). Interpretation: Our findings show that TVS screening for endometrial cancer has good sensitivity in postmenopausal women. The burden of diagnostic procedures and false-positive results can be reduced by limiting screening to a higher-risk group. The role of population screening for endometrial cancer remains uncertain, but our findings are of immediate value in the management of increased endometrial thickness in postmenopausal women undergoing pelvic scans for reasons other than vaginal bleeding. Funding: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, NHS Research and Development, and The Eve Appeal. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Background: Ovarian cancer has a high case–fatality ratio, with most women not diagnosed until the disease is in its advanced stages. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) is a randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of screening on mortality. This report summarises the outcome of the prevalence (initial) screen in UKCTOCS. Methods: Between 2001 and 2005, a total of 202 638 post-menopausal women aged 50–74 years were randomly assigned to no treatment (control; n=101 359); annual CA125 screening (interpreted using a risk of ovarian cancer algorithm) with transvaginal ultrasound scan as a second-line test (multimodal screening [MMS]; n=50 640); or annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound (USS; n=50 639) alone in a 2:1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random number algorithm. All women provided a blood sample at recruitment. Women randomised to the MMS group had their blood tested for CA125 and those randomised to the USS group were sent an appointment to attend for a transvaginal scan. Women with abnormal screens had repeat tests. Women with persistent abnormality on repeat screens underwent clinical evaluation and, where appropriate, surgery. This trial is registered as ISRCTN22488978 and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. Findings: In the prevalence screen, 50 078 (98·9%) women underwent MMS, and 48 230 (95·2%) underwent USS. The main reasons for withdrawal were death (two MMS, 28 USS), non-ovarian cancer or other disease (none MMS, 66 USS), removal of ovaries (five MMS, 29 USS), relocation (none MMS, 39 USS), failure to attend three appointments for the screen (72 MMS, 757 USS), and participant changing their mind (483 MMS, 1490 USS). Overall, 4355 of 50 078 (8.7%) women in the MMS group and 5779 of 48 230 (12·0%) women in the USS group required a repeat test, and 167 (0·3%) women in the MMS group and 1894 (3·9%) women in the USS group required clinical evaluation. 97 of 50 078 (0·2%) women from the MMS group and 845 of 48 230 (1·8%) from the USS group underwent surgery. 42 (MMS) and 45 (USS) primary ovarian and tubal cancers were detected, including 28 borderline tumours (eight MMS, 20 USS). 28 (16 MMS, 12 USS) of 58 (48·3%; 95% CI 35·0–61·8) of the invasive cancers were stage I/II, with no difference (p=0·396) in stage distribution between the groups. A further 13 (five MMS, eight USS) women developed primary ovarian cancer during the year after the screen. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values for all primary ovarian and tubal cancers were 89·4%, 99·8%, and 43·3% for MMS, and 84·9%, 98·2%, and 5·3% for USS, respectively. For primary invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancers, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values were 89·5%, 99·8%, and 35·1% for MMS, and 75·0%, 98·2%, and 2·8% for USS, respectively. There was a significant difference in specificity (p<0·0001) but not sensitivity between the two screening groups for both primary ovarian and tubal cancers as well as primary epithelial invasive ovarian and tubal cancers. Interpretation: The sensitivity of the MMS and USS screening strategies is encouraging. Specificity was higher in the MMS than in the USS group, resulting in lower rates of repeat testing and surgery. This in part reflects the high prevalence of benign adnexal abnormalities and the more frequent detection of borderline tumours in the USS group. The prevalence screen has established that the screening strategies are feasible. The results of ongoing screening are awaited so that the effect of screening on mortality can be determined. Funding: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health, UK; with additional support from the Eve Appeal, Special Trustees of Bart''s and the London, and Special Trustees of University College London Hospital. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Our study aimed to establish 'real-world' performance and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer (OC) surveillance in women with pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 variants who defer risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO)., Methods: Our study recruited 875 female BRCA1/2 -heterozygotes at 13 UK centres and via an online media campaign, with 767 undergoing at least one 4-monthly surveillance test with the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) test. Surveillance performance was calculated with modelling of occult cancers detected at RRSO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using Markov population cohort simulation., Results: Our study identified 8 OCs during 1277 women screen years: 2 occult OCs at RRSO (both stage 1a), and 6 screen-detected; 3 of 6 (50%) were ≤stage 3a and 5 of 6 (83%) were completely surgically cytoreduced. Modelled sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) for OC were 87.5% (95% CI, 47.3 to 99.7), 99.9% (99.9-100), 75% (34.9-96.8) and 99.9% (99.9-100), respectively. The predicted number of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained by surveillance was 0.179 with an ICER cost - saving of -£102,496/QALY., Conclusion: OC surveillance for women deferring RRSO in a 'real-world' setting is feasible and demonstrates similar performance to research trials; it down-stages OC, leading to a high complete cytoreduction rate and is cost-saving in the UK National Health Service (NHS) setting. While RRSO remains recommended management, ROCA-based surveillance may be considered for female BRCA -heterozygotes who are deferring such surgery., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The project was co-funded by Abcodia Ltd and North Central London Cancer Alliance. Abcodia Ltd had no role in the design of the project, nor in the interpretation of the findings or the drafting/editing of the manuscript. Sue Philpott has previously held a consulting role with Abcodia Ltd Adam Rosenthal has previously held a consulting role with Abcodia Ltd and Everything Genetic Ltd. Ranjit Manchanda has received funding from Yorkshire Cancer Research, GSK, Eve Appeal, Cancer Research UK, NHS Innovation Accelerator (NIA), Barts & the London Charity, Rose Trees Trust outside this work for research related to genetic testing and honorarium for advisory board membership or lectures from Astrazeneca/MSD/GSK/EGL. Naveena Singh has served on advisory boards for Astra-Zeneca-MSD and Glaxo SmithKline. Gareth Evans has a consultancy role with AstraZeneca. Helen Hanson has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca. Steve Skates works at Massachusetts General Hospital which has co-licensed the software for early detection of ovarian cancer to Abcodia and has served on clinical advisory boards for Guardant Health and LUNGevity, has collaborated on early detection research with Freenome, participates in the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for GRAIL and has stock option for serving on the scientific Advisory Board for SISCAPA Assay Technologies. The other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Ovarian cancer continues to have a poor prognosis with the majority of women diagnosed with advanced disease. Therefore, we undertook the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) to determine if population screening can reduce deaths due to the disease. We report on ovarian cancer mortality after long-term follow-up in UKCTOCS., Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years were recruited from 13 centres in National Health Service trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were bilateral oophorectomy, previous ovarian or active non-ovarian malignancy, or increased familial ovarian cancer risk. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS), annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Follow-up was through national registries. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer (WHO 2014 criteria) by June 30, 2020. Analyses were by intention to screen, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening using the versatile test. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type, whereas the outcomes review committee were masked to randomisation group. This study is registered with ISRCTN, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032., Findings: Between April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005, of 1 243 282 women invited, 202 638 were recruited and randomly assigned, and 202 562 were included in the analysis: 50 625 (25·0%) in the MMS group, 50 623 (25·0%) in the USS group, and 101 314 (50·0%) in the no screening group. At a median follow-up of 16·3 years (IQR 15·1-17·3), 2055 women were diagnosed with tubal or ovarian cancer: 522 (1·0%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 517 (1·0%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 1016 (1·0%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. Compared with no screening, there was a 47·2% (95% CI 19·7 to 81·1) increase in stage I and 24·5% (-41·8 to -2·0) decrease in stage IV disease incidence in the MMS group. Overall the incidence of stage I or II disease was 39·2% (95% CI 16·1 to 66·9) higher in the MMS group than in the no screening group, whereas the incidence of stage III or IV disease was 10·2% (-21·3 to 2·4) lower. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0·6%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 291 (0·6%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 619 (0·6%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. No significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths was observed in the MMS (p=0·58) or USS (p=0·36) groups compared with the no screening group., Interpretation: The reduction in stage III or IV disease incidence in the MMS group was not sufficient to translate into lives saved, illustrating the importance of specifying cancer mortality as the primary outcome in screening trials. Given that screening did not significantly reduce ovarian and tubal cancer deaths, general population screening cannot be recommended., Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests UM has stock ownership awarded by University College London (UCL) in Abcodia, which holds the licence for ROCA. She has received grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and The Eve Appeal. She holds patent number EP10178345.4 for Breast Cancer Diagnostics. MP has received grants and AG-M, MB, AR, CK, GC, and SKM have been funded by grants from MRC, Cancer Research UK, NIHR, and The Eve Appeal. RM has received grants from The Eve Appeal, Rosetrees Charity, and Barts Charity, and personal fees from AstraZeneca. SJS holds the (expired) patent for ROCA, patented and owned by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London, licenced to Abcodia. He reports stock options from SISCAPA Assay Technologies, and personal fees from Abcodia, Guardant Health, and Freenome, outside the submitted work. IJJ reports grants from Eve Appeal Charity, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. He co-invented the ROCA in 1995, it was patented by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London and is owned by these universities. Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London granted a licence to ROCA to Abcodia in 2014. IJJ is non-executive director, shareholder, and consultant to Abcodia and has rights to royalties from sales of the ROCA. He founded (1985), was a trustee of (2012–14), and is now an Emeritus trustee (2015–present) of The Eve Appeal, one of the funding agencies for UKCTOCS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 from UK in the highest decile of health and gross regional products per capita., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Recruited all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 symptoms admitted to a single Surrey centre between March and April 2020. Extensive demographic details were documented., Outcome Measure: COVID-19 status of alive/dead and intensive care unit (ICU) status of yes/no., Participants: Patients with COVID-19 from Surrey centre UK (n=429)., Results: 429 adult inpatients (mean age 70±18 years; men 56.4%) were included in this study, of whom, 19.1% required admission to ICU and 31.9% died. Adverse outcomes were associated with age (OR with each decade of years: 1.78, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.11, p<0.001 for mortality); male gender (OR=1.08, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.63, p=0.72, present in 70.7%, of admissions to ICU versus 53% of other cases, p=0.004); cardiac disease (OR=3.43, 95% CI 2.10 to 5.63, p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR=2.37, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.17, p=0.028) and dementia (OR=5.06, 95% CI 2.79 to 9.44, p<0.001). There was no significant impact of ethnicity or body mass index on disease outcome., Conclusions: Despite reports of worse outcomes in deprived regions, we show similar complication and mortality rates due to COVID-19 in an affluent and high life expectancy region., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the effect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality., Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer-generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032., Findings: Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202,638 women: 50,640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50,639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101,359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202,546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50,624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50,623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101,299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345,570 MMS and 327,775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0-12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0-14 of 15% (95% CI -3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (-7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar flexible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality effect was made up of 8% (-20 to 31) in years 0-7 and 23% (1-46) in years 7-14, and in the USS group, of 2% (-27 to 26) in years 0-7 and 21% (-2 to 42) in years 7-14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly different death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (-2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (-27 to 43) in years 0-7 and 28% (-3 to 49) in years 7-14 in favour of MMS., Interpretation: Although the mortality reduction was not significant in the primary analysis, we noted a significant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7-14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening., Funding: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, The Eve Appeal., (Copyright © 2016 Jacobs Menon et al. Open Access article published under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the validity of self-reported hysterectomy against the gold standard of uterine visualisation using pelvic ultrasound., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) based in 13 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland., Participants: Between April 2001 and October 2005, 48 215 postmenopausal women aged 50-74 randomised to the ultrasound screening arm of UKCTOCS underwent the first (initial) scan on the trial., Interventions: At recruitment, the women completed a recruitment questionnaire (RQ) which included previous hysterectomy. The sonographer asked each woman regarding previous hysterectomy (interview format, IF) prior to the scan. At the scan, in addition to ovarian morphology, endometrial thickness (ET)/endometrial abnormality were captured if the uterus was visualised at the scan., Outcome Measures: Self-reported hysterectomy at RQ or IF was compared to ultrasound data on ET/endometrial abnormality (as surrogate uterine visualisation markers) on the first (initial) scan., Results: Of 48 215 women, 3 had congenital uterine agenesis and 218 inconclusive results. The uterus was visualised in 39 121 women. 8871 self-reported hysterectomy at RQ, 8641 at IF and 8487 at both. The uterus was visualised in 39 123, 39 353 and 38 969 women not self-reporting hysterectomy at RQ, IF or both. Validity, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of using RQ alone, IF or both RQ/IF were 99.6%, 98.9%, 99.7%, 98.9% and 99.7%; 98.9%, 98.4%, 99.1%, 95.9% and 99.7%; 99.8%, 99.6%, 99.9%, 99.4% and 99.9%, respectively., Conclusions: Self-reported hysterectomy is a highly accurate and valid source for studying long-term associations of hysterectomy with disease onset., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN)-22488978.