↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Use of CA-125 Tests and Computed Tomographic Scans for Surveillance in Ovarian Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Oncology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
196 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Use of CA-125 Tests and Computed Tomographic Scans for Surveillance in Ovarian Cancer
Published in
JAMA Oncology, July 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1842
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharine M. Esselen, Angel M. Cronin, Kristin Bixel, Michael A. Bookman, Robert A. Burger, David E. Cohn, Mihaela Cristea, Jennifer J. Griggs, Charles F. Levenback, Gina Mantia-Smaldone, Larissa A. Meyer, Ursula A. Matulonis, Joyce C. Niland, Charlotte Sun, David M. O’Malley, Alexi A. Wright, Esselen, Katharine M, Cronin, Angel M, Bixel, Kristin, Bookman, Michael A, Burger, Robert A, Cohn, David E, Cristea, Mihaela, Griggs, Jennifer J, Levenback, Charles F, Mantia-Smaldone, Gina, Meyer, Larissa A, Matulonis, Ursula A, Niland, Joyce C, Sun, Charlotte, O'Malley, David M, Wright, Alexi A

Abstract

A 2009 randomized clinical trial demonstrated that using cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) tests for routine surveillance in ovarian cancer increases the use of chemotherapy and decreases patients' quality of life without improving survival, compared with clinical observation. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines categorize CA-125 testing as optional and discourage the use of radiographic imaging for routine surveillance. To date, few studies have examined the use of CA-125 tests in clinical practice. To examine the use of CA-125 tests and computed tomographic (CT) scans in clinical practice before and after the 2009 randomized clinical trial and to estimate the economic effect of surveillance testing. A prospective cohort of 1241 women with ovarian cancer in clinical remission after completion of primary cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy at 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011, was followed up through December 31, 2012, to study the use of CA-125 tests and CT scans before and after 2009. Data analysis was conducted from April 9, 2014, to March 28, 2016. The use of CA-125 tests and CT scans before and after 2009. Secondary outcomes included the time from CA-125 markers doubling to retreatment among women who experienced a rise in CA-125 markers before and after 2009, and the costs associated with surveillance testing using 2015 Medicare reimbursement rates. Among 1241 women (mean [SD] age 59 [12] years; 1112 white [89.6%]), the use of CA-125 testing and CT scans was similar during the study period. During 12 months of surveillance, the cumulative incidence of patients undergoing 3 or more CA-125 tests was 86% in 2004-2009 vs 91% in 2010-2012 (P = .95), and the cumulative incidence of patients undergoing more than 1 CT scan was 81% in 2004-2009 vs 78% in 2010-2012 (P = .50). Among women whose CA-125 markers doubled (n = 511), there was no significant difference in the time to retreatment with chemotherapy before and after 2009 (median, 2.8 vs 3.5 months; P = .40). During a 12-month period, there was a mean of 4.6 CA-125 tests and 1.7 CT scans performed per patient, resulting in a US population surveillance cost estimate of $1 999 029 per year for CA-125 tests alone and $16 194 647 per year with CT scans added. CA-125 tests and CT scans are still routinely used for surveillance testing in patients with ovarian cancer, although their benefit has not been proven and their use may have significant implications for patients' quality of life as well as costs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 196 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 30%
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Unspecified 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 22%
Unspecified 4 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 162. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#63,104
of 11,400,757 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#170
of 1,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,566
of 266,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#19
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,400,757 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 83.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.