“…With these limitations in mind, the SIRs suggest that the lead-time is very limited in the total and compliant group. In evaluating efficacy of screening, several factors hamper the comparison among various studies, (1) compliance to the intended screening procedure has not been examined in combination with efficacy, (2) generally, no distinction is made between prevalent and incident screen-detected cases, (3) the screening protocol may differ, such as the frequency of screening, the cutoff level of CA125 (15 -35 U ml À1 ) (Bourne et al, 1994;Jacobs et al, 1999;Kauff et al, 2005;Meeuwissen et al, 2005;Olivier et al, 2006), and the combined or sequential order of applying the screening tools (Jacobs et al, 1999;Scheuer et al, 2002;Meeuwissen et al, 2005;Stirling et al, 2005;Olivier et al, 2006), and (4) quality measures of screening tools, like sensitivity, are typically reported including occult tumours, while the proportion of women opting for a BP(S)O differs strongly across various countries (Wainburg and Husted, 2004). Consequently, the proportion of interval cancers detected during screening varies among studies from 5/7 ¼ 71% in the study by Liede et al (2002), 1/3 ¼ 33% in the study by Scheuer et al (2002) and 1/6 ¼ 17% in the study by Vasen et al (2005) ( Table 1).…”