Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 8, 2013 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
18
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Screening for gynecological cancers

Jatinderpal K Kalsi Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women’s Cancer, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
,
Ranjit Manchanda Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women’s Cancer, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
&
Usha Menon Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women’s Cancer, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK. [email protected]
Pages 143-160 | Published online: 10 Jan 2014

References

  • Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 61(2), 69–90 (2011).
  • Castle PE. Gynecological cancer: more evidence supporting human papillomavirus testing. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9(3), 131–132 (2012).
  • Mathew A, George PS. Trends in incidence and mortality rates of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of cervix – worldwide. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 10(4), 645–650 (2009).
  • Glick SB, Clarke AR, Blanchard A, Whitaker AK. Cervical cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment interventions for racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 27(8), 1016–1032 (2012).
  • Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW et al.; ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J. Clin. 62(3), 147–172 (2012).
  • Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Public Health Paper 34. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland (1968).
  • Wright TC, Ronnett BM, Kurman RJ, Ferenczy A. Precancerous lesions of the cervix. In: Blaustein’s Pathology of the Female Genital Tract (6th Edition). Kurman RJ, Ellenson LH, Ronnett BM (Eds). Springer, Berlin, Germany 194–252 (2011).
  • McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 9(5), 425–434 (2008).
  • zur Hausen H. Papillomaviruses in the causation of human cancers – a brief historical account. Virology 384(2), 260–265 (2009).
  • Bernard KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, Burda BU, Senger CA, Lutz K. Risk factors and other epidemiologic considerations for cervical cancer screening: a narrative review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 155(10), 698–705 (2011).
  • Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, Burda BU, Senger CA, Lutz K. Risk factors and other epidemiologic considerations for cervical cancer screening: a narrative review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 155(10), 698–705 (2011).
  • Schiffman M, Herrero R, Desalle R et al. The carcinogenicity of human papillomavirus types reflects viral evolution. Virology 337(1), 76–84 (2005).
  • Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S et al.; International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 348(6), 518–527 (2003).
  • Bouvard V, Baan R, Straif K et al.; WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. A review of human carcinogens – part B: biological agents. Lancet Oncol. 10(4), 321–322 (2009).
  • de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L et al.; Retrospective International Survey and HPV Time Trends Study Group. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 11(11), 1048–1056 (2010).
  • Narisawa-Saito M, Kiyono T. Basic mechanisms of high-risk human papillomavirus-induced carcinogenesis: roles of E6 and E7 proteins. Cancer Sci. 98(10), 1505–1511 (2007).
  • Moody CA, Laimins LA. Human papillomavirus oncoproteins: pathways to transformation. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10(8), 550–560 (2010).
  • Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 156(12), 880–891, W312 (2012).
  • Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 121(3), 211–224 (1997).
  • Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 5. AHCPR Publication No. 99-E010. AHCPR – Level III, MD, USA (1999).
  • Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am. J. Epidemiol. 141(7), 680–689 (1995).
  • Hatem F, Wilbur DC. High grade squamous cervical lesions following negative Papanicolaou smears: false-negative cervical cytology or rapid progression. Diagn. Cytopathol. 12(2), 135–141 (1995).
  • Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 56(12), 765–774 (2001).
  • Albrow R, Kitchener H, Gupta N, Desai M. Cervical screening in England: the past, present, and future. Cancer Cytopathol. 120(2), 87–96 (2012).
  • ACOG Practice Bulletin. Cervical cytology screening. Number 45, August 2003. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 83, 237–247 (2003).
  • Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 12(1), 56–64 (2011).
  • NICE. Technology Appraisal Guidance 69: guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London, UK (2003).
  • Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 111(1), 167–177 (2008).
  • Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R et al.; Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 287(16), 2114–2119 (2002).
  • Evans DM, Hudson EA, Brown CL et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J. Clin. Pathol. 39(9), 933–944 (1986).
  • Denton KJ, Herbert A, Turnbull LS et al.; British Society of Clinical Cytology. The revised BSCC terminology for abnormal cervical cytology. Cytopathology 19(3), 137–157 (2008).
  • NHSCSP Publication No. 1. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology (3rd Edition) (2012).
  • Cronjé HS. Screening for cervical cancer in the developing world. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 19(4), 517–529 (2005).
  • Sankaranarayanan R, Nessa A, Esmy PO, Dangou JM. Visual inspection methods for cervical cancer prevention. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 26(2), 221–232 (2012).
  • Sauvaget C, Fayette JM, Muwonge R, Wesley R, Sankaranarayanan R. Accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 113(1), 14–24 (2011).
  • Sankaranarayanan R, Esmy PO, Rajkumar R et al. Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 370(9585), 398–406 (2007).
  • Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J. Pathol. 189(1), 12–19 (1999).
  • Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int. J. Cancer 119(5), 1095–1101 (2006).
  • Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I et al.; Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial Study Group. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(16), 1579–1588 (2007).
  • Zhao FH, Lin MJ, Chen F et al.; Cervical Cancer Screening Group in China. Performance of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing as a primary screen for cervical cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 17 population-based studies from China. Lancet Oncol. 11(12), 1160–1171 (2010).
  • Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Meijer CJ et al. Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine 24(Suppl. 3), 78–89 (2006).
  • Koliopoulos G, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Kyrgiou M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies. Gynecol. Oncol. 104(1), 232–246 (2007).
  • Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Thomson C et al. HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 10(7), 672–682 (2009).
  • Naucler P, Ryd W, Törnberg S et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(16), 1589–1597 (2007).
  • Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 13(1), 78–88 (2012).
  • Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F et al.; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer screening (NTCC) Working Group. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 11(3), 249–257 (2010).
  • Rossi PG, Ronco G. The present and future of cervical cancer screening programmes in Europe. Curr. Pharm. Des. PMID:23016782 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
  • Legood R, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, Moss S. Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ 332(7533), 79–85 (2006).
  • Moss S, Gray A, Legood R, Vessey M, Patnick J, Kitchener H; Liquid Based Cytology/Human Papillomavirus Cervical Pilot Studies Group. Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study. BMJ 332(7533), 83–85 (2006).
  • Kelly RS, Patnick J, Kitchener HC, Moss SM; NHSCSP HPV Special Interest Group. HPV testing as a triage for borderline or mild dyskaryosis on cervical cytology: results from the Sentinel Sites study. Br. J. Cancer 105(7), 983–988 (2011).
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician–Gynaecologists (no. 109). Cervical Cytology Screening (2009).
  • IARC. World Cancer Report 2008. IARC (2008).
  • Stoler MH, Wright TC Jr, Sharma A, Apple R, Gutekunst K, Wright TL; ATHENA (Addressing THE Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics) HPV Study Group. High-risk human papillomavirus testing in women with ASC-US cytology: results from the ATHENA HPV study. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 135(3), 468–475 (2011).
  • Wright TC Jr, Stoler MH, Sharma A, Zhang G, Behrens C, Wright TL; ATHENA (Addressing THE Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics) Study Group. Evaluation of HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping for the triage of women with high-risk HPV+ cytology-negative results. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 136(4), 578–586 (2011).
  • Wright TC Jr, Stoler MH, Behrens CM, Apple R, Derion T, Wright TL. The ATHENA human papillomavirus study: design, methods, and baseline results. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 206(1), 46.e1–46.e11 (2012).
  • Arbyn M, Roelens J, Cuschieri K et al. The APTIMA HPV assay versus the Hybrid Capture 2 test in triage of women with ASC-US or LSIL cervical cytology: a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy. Int. J. Cancer. 132(1), 101–108 (2012).
  • Ratnam S, Coutlee F, Fontaine D et al. Aptima HPV E6/E7 mRNA test is as sensitive as Hybrid Capture 2 assay but more specific at detecting cervical precancer and cancer. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49(2), 557–564 (2011).
  • Teschendorff AE, Jones A, Fiegl H et al. Epigenetic variability in cells of normal cytology is associated with the risk of future morphological transformation. Genome Med. 4(3), 24 (2012).
  • Brown AJ, Trimble CL. New technologies for cervical cancer screening. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 26(2), 233–242 (2012).
  • Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur. J. Cancer 47(6), 864–871 (2011).
  • Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(14), 1385–1394 (2009).
  • Denny LA, Kuhn L, Hu CC, Tsai WY, Wright TC Jr. Human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer prevention: long-term results of a randomized screening trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102(20), 1557–1567 (2010).
  • Qiao YL, Sellors JW, Eder PS et al. A new HPV-DNA test for cervical-cancer screening in developing regions: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy in rural China. Lancet Oncol. 9(10), 929–936 (2008).
  • Petignat P, Vassilakos P. Is it time to introduce HPV self-sampling for primary cervical cancer screening? J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104(3), 166–167 (2012).
  • Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramèr MR, Franco EL, Coutlée F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 105(2), 530–535 (2007).
  • Zhao FH, Lewkowitz AK, Chen F et al. Pooled analysis of a self-sampling HPV DNA test as a cervical cancer primary screening method. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104(3), 178–188 (2012).
  • Wise J. Pilot study will assess whether HPV test should replace smears to screen for cervical cancer. BMJ 344, e3744 (2012).
  • WHO. Human papillomavirus vaccines. WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol. Rec. 84, 118–131 (2009).
  • Tay SK. Cervical cancer in the human papillomavirus vaccination era. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 24(1), 3–7 (2012).
  • Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD et al.; Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention Cost Working Group. Cost–effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. N. Engl. J. Med. 353(20), 2158–2168 (2005).
  • Elit L, Jimenez W, McAlpine J, Ghatage P, Miller D, Plante M; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada; Society of Canadian Colposcopists. SOGC–GOC–SCC Joint Policy Statement. No. 255, March 2011. Cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 33(3), 272–279 (2011).
  • Basu P, Nessa A, Majid M, Rahman JN, Ahmed T. Evaluation of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme of Bangladesh and the formulation of quality assurance guidelines. J. Fam. Plann. Reprod. Health Care 36(3), 131–134 (2010).
  • Manchanda R, Menon U. Screening for gynaecological malignancy. In: Textbook of Gynaecological Oncology (2nd Edition). Ayhan A, Gultekin M, Dursun P (Eds). Günes Publishing, Ankara, Turkey, 124–134 (2011).
  • Bast Jr RC. Molecular approaches to personalizing management of ovarian cancer. Ann. Oncol. 22(Suppl. 8), viii5–viii15 (2011).
  • Campbell S, Goessens L, Goswamy R, Whitehead M. Real-time ultrasonography for determination of ovarian morphology and volume. A possible early screening test for ovarian cancer? Lancet 1(8269), 425–426 (1982).
  • DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ, Kryscio RJ, van Nagell JR Jr. Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for the detection of early ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 65(3), 408–414 (1997).
  • Higgins RV, van Nagell JR Jr, Donaldson ES et al. Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 34(3), 402–406 (1989).
  • Higgins RV, van Nagell JR Jr, Woods CH, Thompson EA, Kryscio RJ. Interobserver variation in ovarian measurements using transvaginal sonography. Gynecol. Oncol. 39(1), 69–71 (1990).
  • Bignardi T, Condous G. Ultrasound for ovarian cancer screening: are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 71(1), 41–46 (2011).
  • Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 341, c6839 (2010).
  • van Nagell JR Jr, Miller RW, DeSimone CP et al. Long-term survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer detected by ultrasonographic screening. Obstet. Gynecol. 118(6), 1212–1221 (2011).
  • Thériault C, Pinard M, Comamala M et al. MUC16 (CA125) regulates epithelial ovarian cancer cell growth, tumorigenesis and metastasis. Gynecol. Oncol. 121(3), 434–443 (2011).
  • Bast RC Jr, Feeney M, Lazarus H, Nadler LM, Colvin RB, Knapp RC. Reactivity of a monoclonal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. J. Clin. Invest. 68(5), 1331–1337 (1981).
  • Patankar MS, Jing Y, Morrison JC et al. Potent suppression of natural killer cell response mediated by the ovarian tumor marker CA125. Gynecol. Oncol. 99(3), 704–713 (2005).
  • Davelaar EM, van Kamp GJ, Verstraeten RA, Kenemans P. Comparison of seven immunoassays for the quantification of CA 125 antigen in serum. Clin. Chem. 44(7), 1417–1422 (1998).
  • Bast RC Jr, Klug TL, St John E et al. A radioimmunoassay using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 309(15), 883–887 (1983).
  • Alagoz T, Buller RE, Berman M, Anderson B, Manetta A, DiSaia P. What is a normal CA125 level? Gynecol. Oncol. 53(1), 93–97 (1994).
  • Skates SJ, Mai P, Horick NK et al. Large prospective study of ovarian cancer screening in high-risk women: CA125 cut-point defined by menopausal status. Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila.) 4(9), 1401–1408 (2011).
  • Jacobs I, Bast RC Jr. The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. Hum. Reprod. 4(1), 1–12 (1989).
  • Zurawski VR Jr, Orjaseter H, Andersen A, Jellum E. Elevated serum CA 125 levels prior to diagnosis of ovarian neoplasia: relevance for early detection of ovarian cancer. Int. J. Cancer 42(5), 677–680 (1988).
  • Jacobs I, Davies AP, Bridges J et al. Prevalence screening for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women by CA 125 measurement and ultrasonography. BMJ 306(6884), 1030–1034 (1993).
  • Jacobs IJ, Skates S, Davies AP et al. Risk of diagnosis of ovarian cancer after raised serum CA 125 concentration: a prospective cohort study. BMJ 313(7069), 1355–1358 (1996).
  • Skates SJ, Jacobs IJ. Screening based on the risk of cancer calculation from Bayesian hierarchical change point and mixture models of longitudinal markers. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 96, 429–443 (2001).
  • Skates SJ, Menon U, MacDonald N et al. Calculation of the risk of ovarian cancer from serial CA-125 values for preclinical detection in postmenopausal women. J. Clin. Oncol. 21(Suppl. 10), 206s–210s (2003).
  • Menon U, Skates SJ, Lewis S et al. Prospective study using the Risk Of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm to screen for ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(31), 7919–7926 (2005).
  • Greene MH, Piedmonte M, Alberts D et al. A prospective study of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and longitudinal CA-125 screening among women at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer: design and baseline characteristics: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 17(3), 594–604 (2008).
  • Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett 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 UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 10(4), 327–340 (2009).
  • Cramer DW, Bast RC Jr, Berg CD et al. Ovarian cancer biomarker performance in prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial specimens. Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila.) 4(3), 365–374 (2011).
  • Van Gorp T, Cadron I, Despierre E et al. HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br. J. Cancer 104(5), 863–870 (2011).
  • Montagnana M, Lippi G, Ruzzenente O et al. The utility of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in patients with a pelvic mass. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 23(5), 331–335 (2009).
  • Jacobs IJ, Skates SJ, MacDonald N et al. Screening for ovarian cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Lancet 353(9160), 1207–1210 (1999).
  • Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 18(3), 414–420 (2008).
  • Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A et al.; PLCO Project Team. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 305(22), 2295–2303 (2011).
  • Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Jacobs I. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality. JAMA 306(14), 1544; author reply 1544–1544; author reply 1545 (2011).
  • Menon U. Ovarian cancer screening has no effect on disease-specific mortality. Evid. Based. Med. 17(2), 47–48 (2012).
  • Pinsky PF, Zhu C, Skates SJ et al. Potential effect of the Risk Of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) on the mortality outcome of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trial. Int. J. Cancer doi:10.1002/ijc.27909 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
  • Fallowfield L, Fleissig A, Barrett J et al.; UKCTOCS Trialists. Awareness of ovarian cancer risk factors, beliefs and attitudes towards screening: baseline survey of 21,715 women participating in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening. Br. J. Cancer 103(4), 454–461 (2010).
  • Jacobs I, Menon U. Can ovarian cancer screening save lives? The question remains unanswered. Obstet. Gynecol. 118(6), 1209–1211 (2011).
  • Evans DG, Gaarenstroom KN, Stirling D et al. Screening for familial ovarian cancer: poor survival of BRCA1/2 related cancers. J. Med. Genet. 46(9), 593–597 (2009).
  • Rosenthal AN, Fraser L, Manchanda R et al. 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. 31(1), 49–57 (2013).
  • Manchanda R, Rosenthal A, Burnell M, Fraser L, Mackay J, Skates S. Change in stage distribution observed with annual screening for ovarian cancer in BRCA carriers. J. Med. Genet. 46(6), 423–424 (2009).
  • Lu KH, Skates S, Bevers TB et al. A prospective US ovarian cancer screening study using the Risk Of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA). J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 15s, (Abstract 5003) (2010).
  • Goff BA, Mandel L, Muntz HG, Melancon CH. Ovarian carcinoma diagnosis. Cancer 89(10), 2068–2075 (2000).
  • Olson SH, Mignone L, Nakraseive C, Caputo TA, Barakat RR, Harlap S. Symptoms of ovarian cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 98(2), 212–217 (2001).
  • Goff BA, Mandel LS, Melancon CH, Muntz HG. Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA 291(22), 2705–2712 (2004).
  • Olaitan A. NICE on ovarian cancer. Recommendations for detection in primary care are flawed. BMJ 342, d3022 (2011).
  • Cave JA. NICE on ovarian cancer. Please include GPs in developing guidelines. BMJ 342, d3023 (2011).
  • Goff BA, Mandel LS, Drescher CW et al. Development of an ovarian cancer symptom index: possibilities for earlier detection. Cancer 109(2), 221–227 (2007).
  • Andersen MR, Goff BA, Lowe KA et al. Use of a Symptom Index, CA125, and HE4 to predict ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 116(3), 378–383 (2010).
  • Gilbert L, Basso O, Sampalis J et al.; DOvE Study Group. Assessment of symptomatic women for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer: results from the prospective DOvE pilot project. Lancet Oncol. 13(3), 285–291 (2012).
  • Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A et al. Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials. Trials 12, 61 (2011).
  • Moyer VA; on behalf of the USPSTF. Screening for ovarian cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. Ann. Intern.Med. 157(12), 1–56 (2012).
  • Brown PO, Palmer C. The preclinical natural history of serous ovarian cancer: defining the target for early detection. PLoS Med. 6(7), e1000114 (2009).
  • Hori SS, Gambhir SS. Mathematical model identifies blood biomarker-based early cancer detection strategies and limitations. Sci. Transl. Med. 3(109), 109ra116 (2011).
  • Vaughan S, Coward JI, Bast RC Jr et al. Rethinking ovarian cancer: recommendations for improving outcomes. Nat. Rev. Cancer 11(10), 719–725 (2011).
  • Lee Y, Miron A, Drapkin R et al. A candidate precursor to serous carcinoma that originates in the distal Fallopian tube. J. Pathol. 211(1), 26–35 (2007).
  • Carlson J, Roh MH, Chang MC, Crum CP. Recent advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of serous carcinoma: the concept of low- and high-grade disease and the role of the Fallopian tube. Diagn. Histopathol. (Oxf.) 14(8), 352–365 (2008).
  • Mehra K, Mehrad M, Ning G et al. STICS, SCOUTs and p53 signatures; a new language for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Front. Biosci. (Elite Ed.) 3, 625–634 (2011).
  • McAlpine JN, El Hallani S, Lam SF et al. Autofluorescence imaging can identify preinvasive or clinically occult lesions in Fallopian tube epithelium: a promising step towards screening and early detection. Gynecol. Oncol. 120(3), 385–392 (2011).
  • Prat J. Ovarian carcinomas: five distinct diseases with different origins, genetic alterations, and clinicopathological features. Virchows Arch. 460(3), 237–249 (2012).
  • Kohn EC, Hurteau J. Ovarian cancer: making its own rules – again. Cancer 119(3), 474–476 (2013).
  • Grisham RN, Iyer G, Garg K et al. BRAF Mutation is associated with early stage disease and improved outcome in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancer 119(3), 548–554 (2013).
  • Kurman RJ, Shih IeM. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 34(3), 433–443 (2010).
  • Kurman RJ, Shih IeM. Molecular pathogenesis and extraovarian origin of epithelial ovarian cancer – shifting the paradigm. Hum. Pathol. 42(7), 918–931 (2011).
  • Kinde I, Bettegowda C, Wang Y et al. Evaluation of DNA from the papanicolaou test to detect ovarian and endometrial cancers. Sci. Transl. Med. 5(167), 167ra4 (2013).
  • Sorosky JI. Endometrial cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 120(2 Pt 1), 383–397 (2012).
  • Evans T, Sany O, Pearmain P, Ganesan R, Blann A, Sundar S. Differential trends in the rising incidence of endometrial cancer by type: data from a UK population-based registry from 1994 to 2006. Br. J. Cancer 104(9), 1505–1510 (2011).
  • Jacobs I, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M et al. Sensitivity of transvaginal ultrasound screening for endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women: a case–control study within the UKCTOCS cohort. Lancet Oncol. 12(1), 38–48 (2011).
  • Lindemann K, Vatten LJ, Ellstrøm-Engh M, Eskild A. Body mass, diabetes and smoking, and endometrial cancer risk: a follow-up study. Br. J. Cancer 98(9), 1582–1585 (2008).
  • Reeves GK, Pirie K, Beral V, Green J, Spencer E, Bull D; Million Women Study Collaboration. Cancer incidence and mortality in relation to body mass index in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 335(7630), 1134 (2007).
  • Bokhman JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 15(1), 10–17 (1983).
  • Allard JE, Maxwell GL. Race disparities between black and white women in the incidence, treatment, and prognosis of endometrial cancer. Cancer Control 16(1), 53–56 (2009).
  • Lynch HT, Krush AJ. The cancer family syndrome and cancer control. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 132(2), 247–250 (1971).
  • Lynch HT, Smyrk T. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome). An updated review. Cancer 78(6), 1149–1167 (1996).
  • Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 116(6), 1453–1456 (1999).
  • Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 96(4), 261–268 (2004).
  • Watson P, Riley B. The tumor spectrum in the Lynch syndrome. Fam. Cancer 4(3), 245–248 (2005).
  • Pande M, Wei C, Chen J et al. Cancer spectrum in DNA mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: results from a hospital based Lynch syndrome registry. Fam. Cancer 11(3), 441–447 (2012).
  • Stuckless S, Green J, Dawson L et al. Impact of gynecological screening in Lynch syndrome carriers with an MSH2 mutation. Clin. Genet. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01929.x (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
  • Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM et al. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology 137(5), 1621–1627 (2009).
  • Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S et al.; French Cancer Genetics Network. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 305(22), 2304–2310 (2011).
  • Nakagawa-Okamura C, Sato S, Tsuji I et al. Effectiveness of mass screening for endometrial cancer. Acta Cytol. 46(2), 277–283 (2002).
  • Rijcken FE, Mourits MJ, Kleibeuker JH, Hollema H, van der Zee AG. Gynecologic screening in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 91(1), 74–80 (2003).
  • Lécuru F, Le Frère Belda MA, Bats AS et al. Performance of office hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy for detecting endometrial disease in women at risk of human non-polyposis colon cancer: a prospective study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 18(6), 1326–1331 (2008).
  • Gerritzen LH, Hoogerbrugge N, Oei AL et al. Improvement of endometrial biopsy over transvaginal ultrasound alone for endometrial surveillance in women with Lynch syndrome. Fam. Cancer 8(4), 391–397 (2009).
  • Hendriks YM, de Jong AE, Morreau H et al. Diagnostic approach and management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma): a guide for clinicians. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 56(4), 213–225 (2006).
  • Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA 296(12), 1507–1517 (2006).
  • Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brölmann HA, Heintz AP. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer 89(8), 1765–1772 (2000).
  • Elmasry K, Davies AJ, Evans DG, Seif MN, Reynolds K. Strategies for endometrial screening in the Lynch syndrome population: a patient acceptability study. Fam. Cancer 8(4), 431–439 (2009).
  • Wood NJ, Munot S, Sheridan E, Duffy SR. Does a ‘one-stop’ gynecology screening clinic for women in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families have an impact on their psychological morbidity and perception of health? Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 18(2), 279–284 (2008).
  • Pasqualotto EB, Margossian H, Price LL, Bradley LD. Accuracy of preoperative diagnostic tools and outcome of hysteroscopic management of menstrual dysfunction. J. Am. Assoc. Gynecol. Laparosc. 7(2), 201–209 (2000).
  • Tahir MM, Bigrigg MA, Browning JJ, Brookes ST, Smith PA. A randomised controlled trial comparing transvaginal ultrasound, outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy with inpatient hysteroscopy and curettage. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 106(12), 1259–1264 (1999).
  • Lécuru F, Metzger U, Scarabin C, Le Frère Belda MA, Olschwang S, Laurent Puig P. Hysteroscopic findings in women at risk of HNPCC. Results of a prospective observational study. Fam. Cancer 6(3), 295–299 (2007).
  • Manchanda R, Saridogan E, Abdelraheim A et al. Annual outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling (OHES) in HNPCC/Lynch syndrome (LS). Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 286(6), 1555–1562 (2012).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.