Abstract
Background In England, current practice is cancer antigen 125 (CA125) testing with pelvic ultrasound scan (USS) if CA125 is ≥35 U/mL for triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer (OC) in primary care. However, OC risk varies with CA125 level and age. The Ovatools model predicts OC risk based on age and CA125 levels to support primary care triage.
Method We evaluated five alternative triage pathways for suspected OC in primary care, using a decision model. Two CA125-USS sequential pathways used Ovatools risk: 1-3% (subsequent USS) and ≥3% (urgent referral), or age-adjusted CA125 thresholds equivalent to Ovatools risks. Three pathways involved concurrent CA125-USS testing, with referral if abnormal USS or one of the following: (1) Ovatools risk ≥3%, (2) CA125 above the equivalent age-adjusted threshold or (3) CA125 ≥35U/mL. Clinical and cost-effectiveness was compared against current practice for women over and under 50 years of age.
Results All alternative pathways increased benefits at age ≥50 years, at additional cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for CA125-USS sequential pathways were below 30,000 British pounds, dropping below 20,000 British pounds if the Ovatools threshold for USS was increased to 1.2-1.4% risk.
Discussion For women ≥50 years, the Ovatools and equivalent age-adjusted threshold sequential pathways are cost-effective compared to current practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study/project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (project reference 629). EJC is supported by a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300650) and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This research arises from the CanTest Collaborative, funded by Cancer Research UK [C8640/A23385].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at CPRD, NCRAS and UK Biobank. Application is needed for the use of these data sources.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
I changed a co-author's first name from Boby to Borislava. Boby is her simplified informal name for daily use, but I used it here due to an oversight. Borislave is her name used in formal places.
