Search

Abstract Background There is a trend to increasing use of routinely collected health data to ascertain outcome measures in trials. We report on the completeness and accuracy of national ovarian cancer and death registration in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Methods Of the 202,638 participants, 202,632 were successfully linked and followed through national cancer and death registries of Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Women with registrations of any of 19 pre-defined ICD-10 codes suggestive of tubo-ovarian cancer or notification of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer from hospital episode statistics or trial sites were identified. Copies of hospital and primary care notes were retrieved and reviewed by an independent outcomes review committee. National registration of site and cause of death as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer (C56/C57/C48) obtained up to 3 months after trial censorship was compared to that assigned by outcomes review (reference standard). Results Outcome review was undertaken in 3110 women on whom notification was received between 2001 and 2014. Ovarian cancer was confirmed in 1324 of whom 1125 had a relevant cancer registration. Sensitivity and specificity of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer registration were 85.0% (1125/1324; 95% CI 83.7–86.2%) and 94.0% (1679/1786; 95% CI 93.2–94.8%), respectively. Of 2041 death registrations reviewed, 681 were confirmed to have a tubo-ovarian cancer of whom 605 had relevant death registration. Sensitivity and specificity were 88.8% (605/681; 95% CI 86.4–91.2%) and 96.7% (1482/1533, 95% CI 95.8–97.6%), respectively. When multiple electronic health record sources were considered, sensitivity for cancer site increased to 91.1% (1206/1324, 95% CI 89.4–92.5%) and for cause of death 94.0% (640/681, 95% CI 91.9–95.5%). Of 1232 with cancer registration, 8.7% (107/1232) were wrongly designated as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers by the registry and 4.0% (47/1172) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancers were mis-registered. In 656 with death registrations, 7.8% (51/656) were wrongly assigned as due to ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers while 6.2% (40/645) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancer deaths were mis-registered. Conclusion Follow-up of trial participants for tubo-ovarian cancer using national registry data will result in incomplete ascertainment, particularly of the site due in part to the latency of registration. This can be reduced by using other routinely collected data such as hospital episode statistics. Central adjudication by experts though resource intensive adds value by improving the accuracy of diagnoses. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000

Background: Tubo-ovarian cancer (OC) continues to be the most lethal of all gynaecological cancers. Over half of women are diagnosed with late stage (III/IV) disease, which has a five-year survival rate of 11%. Socioeconomic status (SES) has been shown to have an impact on outcomes of several cancer types, including OC. This study aims to investigate any potential association between SES and stage at diagnosis of OC. Methods: Women from the non-screening arm of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) with a confirmed diagnosis of OC prior to 01 January 2015 and an English index of multiple deprivation (IMD) score were eligible for the study. The association between IMD and OC stage (FIGO) was analysed using an ordinal logistic regression model adjusted for age at diagnosis and BMI. Results: Four-hundred and fifty seven women were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis. The odds of being diagnosed with the higher dichotomization of stage (I vs. II/III/IV; I/II vs. III/IV; I/II/III vs. IV) was 1.29 (p = 0.017; 95% CI: 1.048−1.592) per unit SD (standard deviation) increase in IMD. This translates to a 29% increase in odds of being diagnosed at the higher stage per each unit SD increase in IMD. Conclusion: Increased deprivation is consistently associated with a higher probability of being diagnosed with later stage OC.

Background: We report on a unique audit of seven sonographers self-reporting high visualization rates of normal postmenopausal ovaries in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). This audit was ordered by the trial’s Ultrasound Management Subcommittee after an initiative taken in 2008 to improve the quality of scanning and the subsequent increase in the number of sonographers claiming very high ovary visualisation rates. Methods: Seven sonographers reporting high rates (>89%) of visualizing normal postmenopausal ovaries in examinations performed between 1st January and 31st December 2008 were identified. Eight experts in gynaecological scanning reviewed a random selection of exams performed by these sonographers and assessed whether visualization of both ovaries could be confirmed (cVR-Both) in the examinations. A random effects bivariate probit model was fitted to analyse the results. Results: The eight experts reviewed images from 357 examinations performed on 349 postmenopausal women (mean age 60.0 years, range 50.2-73.3) by the seven sonographers. The mean cVR-Both obtained from the model for these sonographers was 67.2% with a range of 47.6-86.5% (95%CI 63.9-70.5%). The range of cVR-Both between the experts was 47.3-88.3% and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for left and right ovary confirmation was 0.39. Conclusions: The audit suggests that self-reported visualization of postmenopausal ovaries is unreliable, as visualisation of both ovaries could not be confirmed in almost a third of examinations. The agreement for visualization of both ovaries based on review of a static image between experts and sonographers and between expert reviewers alone was only moderate. Further research is needed to develop reliable Quality Control metrics for transvaginal ultrasound.