• Detection of MCM5 as a novel non-invasive aid for the diagnosis of endometrial and ovarian tumours

      Stockley, J.; Akhand, R.; Kennedy, A.; Nyberg, C.; Crosbie, E. J.; Edmondson, R. J.; orcid: 0000-0003-2553-4423; email: richard.edmondson@manchester.ac.uk (BioMed Central, 2020-10-15)
      Abstract: Background: MCM5 is a protein involved in DNA replication, facilitating cell proliferation. In normal epithelium MCM5 expression is restricted to the cells in the basal proliferative compartments, however in the presence of a tumour MCM5 positive cells are present at the surface epithelium and are shed into bodily fluids. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity of MCM5 as a biomarker for the detection of endometrial and ovarian cancer. Methods: Patients with known ovarian or endometrial cancers, or known benign gynaecological conditions, were enrolled. Informed consent was obtained prior to the collection of full void urine, and either a vaginal tampon (worn for 6–8 h), or a vaginal swab. Vaginal secretions were extracted from the tampon or swab, centrifuged and lysed. Urine samples were centrifuged and lysed. MCM5 levels were determined by MCM5-ELISA (Arquer Diagnostics Ltd). Results: 125 patients completed the study protocol, 41 patients had endometrial cancer, 26 ovarian cancer, and 58 benign controls. All patients provided a urine sample and either a tampon or vaginal swab sample. Urine MCM5 levels were higher in cancer patients than controls (p < 0.0001), there was no significant difference in levels between tampon samples or vaginal swab samples in cancer patients when compared to controls. Performance of MCM5 to discriminate cancer from benign disease was high with an area under the ROC curve of 0.83 for endometrial cancer and 0.68 for ovarian cancer. Using a cut off of 12 pg/mL, overall sensitivity for endometrial cancer was 87.8, and 61.5% for ovarian cancer with a specificity of 75.9%. Conclusions: MCM5 is a novel sensitive and specific biomarker for the detection of ovarian and endometrial tumours in urine samples, which is likely to have clinical utility as a diagnostic aid.
    • What are the benefits and harms of risk stratified screening as part of the NHS breast screening Programme? Study protocol for a multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420)

      French, David P.; orcid: 0000-0002-7663-7804; email: David.French@manchester.ac.uk; Astley, Susan; Brentnall, Adam R.; Cuzick, Jack; Dobrashian, Richard; Duffy, Stephen W.; Gorman, Louise S.; Harkness, Elaine F.; Harrison, Fiona; Harvie, Michelle; et al. (BioMed Central, 2020-06-18)
      Abstract: Background: In principle, risk-stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) should produce a better balance of benefits and harms. The main benefit is the offer of NICE-approved more frequent screening and/ or chemoprevention for women who are at increased risk, but are unaware of this. We have developed BC-Predict, to be offered to women when invited to NHSBSP which collects information on risk factors (self-reported information on family history and hormone-related factors via questionnaire; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). BC-Predict produces risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5 to < 8% 10-year) to have discussion of prevention and early detection options at Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics. Despite the promise of systems such as BC-Predict, there are still too many uncertainties for a fully-powered definitive trial to be appropriate or ethical. The present research aims to identify these key uncertainties regarding the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP. Key objectives of the present research are to quantify important potential benefits and harms, and identify key drivers of the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. Methods: A non-randomised fully counterbalanced study design will be used, to include approximately equal numbers of women offered NHSBSP (n = 18,700) and BC-Predict (n = 18,700) from selected screening sites (n = 7). In the initial 8-month time period, women eligible for NHSBSP will be offered BC-Predict in four screening sites. Three screening sites will offer women usual NHSBSP. In the following 8-months the study sites offering usual NHSBSP switch to BC-Predict and vice versa. Key potential benefits including uptake of risk consultations, chemoprevention and additional screening will be obtained for both groups. Key potential harms such as increased anxiety will be obtained via self-report questionnaires, with embedded qualitative process analysis. A decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis will identify the key uncertainties underpinning the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. Discussion: We will assess the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP, and identify the main uncertainties for a definitive evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BC-Predict. Trial registration: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).