A cost consequence analysis of six diagnostic strategies for ovarian cancer: A model-based economic evaluation

  1. Samuel J. Perry
  2. Donal Griffin
  3. Eleanor V. Williams
  4. Tracy E. Roberts
  5. Fong Lien Kwong
  6. Sarah Williams
  7. Jon Deeks
  8. Katie Scandrett
  9. Ridhi Agarwal
  10. Sudha S. Sundar
  11. Mark Monahan
Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the costs and consequences of six diagnostic strategies for ovarian cancer in pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women with symptoms in secondary care.

Design

Economic evaluation alongside a prospective single-arm diagnostic accuracy study.

Setting

NHS secondary care outpatients (2-week referrals, clinics, GP referrals, cross-specialty referrals) and inpatients (emergency presentations to secondary care).

Sample

Two cohorts of 857 pre-menopausal and 1,242 post-menopausal newly presenting to secondary care with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer.

Methods

A model-based cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was conducted using a decision tree simulating patient pathways over 12-months. Diagnostic accuracy data were sourced from the ROCkeTS study and supplemented by literature.

Main outcome measures

Cancer deaths, correct diagnosis proportion, and diagnostic yield.

Results

No diagnostic strategy was optimal across all outcomes. Across both cohorts, the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) 200 was least expensive but had poor cancer death and diagnostic yield outcomes. The ADNEX 3% strategy had the highest diagnostic yield and lowest cancer mortality but was the most expensive.

For pre-menopausal women, the IOTA ADNEX 10% strategy outperformed ORADS, ROMA, and CA125 in cost and outcomes. For post-menopausal women, the high cancer prevalence required a trade-off. In sensitivity analysis a two-step IOTA ADNEX 10% strategy outperformed ORADS, ROMA, and CA125 across all three outcomes, making the strategy a more balanced choice in both cohorts.

Conclusion

At 12 months, no single diagnostic strategy was superior. Early diagnosis requires balancing cancer mortality, diagnostic yield, and cost. The IOTA ADNEX two-step strategy at 10% threshold provided the best trade-off across these factors and is recommended for practice.

Funding

This study is funded by a grant from National Institute of Heath Research, Health Technology assessment HTA 13/13/01.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2025.10.17.25338224 on medRxiv