Assessing the rates of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and surgical interventions associated with screening tools: a systematic review

Author:

Silverwood Sierra MORCID,Backer Grant,Galloway Annie,Reid Katrina,Jeter Anna,Harrison Margo

Abstract

ObjectiveEarly detection of ovarian cancer can improve patient outcomes; however, screening tests can yield false-positive results, leading to unnecessary surgical interventions. This systematic review explores the prevalence of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and subsequent unnecessary surgical interventions.Methods and analysisFive databases were searched in March 2023 and again in March 2024, encompassing primary literature published between 2003 and 2024. Data collection focused on studies reporting the number of surgical interventions resulting from a false-positive screening result. Studies were categorized by patient risk (average vs high). Studies lacking screening or surgical intervention data, those in which the screening did not directly influence surgical decisions, or those not in English were excluded.ResultsOf the 12 papers included, the majority were cohort studies (75%) based in the USA (66%). The primary screening methods included Cancer antigen 125 and transvaginal ultrasound scanning. Patients were stratified by risk, with four studies focused on high-risk populations and eight in average-risk populations. The false-positive and surgical screening rates exhibited significant variability, regardless of risk (0.1%–23.3% and 0%–54.9%, respectively). Complications associated with unnecessary surgical interventions, such as perforation, blood loss and bowel injury, were only reported in four studies. No studies examined the effect these interventions had on patients’ quality of life or directly reported the associated costs of these interventions.ConclusionThis review highlights the significant variability in ovarian cancer screening results, which lead to unnecessary and invasive surgical procedures causing complications such as perforation, blood loss and bowel injury.

Publisher

BMJ

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3