iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Ovarian Cancer Screening: Are Doctors Ordering Too Many Tests?

Ovarian Cancer

First Posted: 02/ 6/2012 5:51 pm Updated: 02/ 6/2012 7:17 pm

No major medical organizations recommend routine ovarian cancer screening, but that hasn't stopped doctors from regularly testing for the disease. According to a new study, primary care physicians and OB-GYNs regularly screen women at low-risk for ovarian cancer, exposing them to "substantial" potential harms.

In the paper, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed survey responses from doctors who were asked whether they would "almost always," "sometimes" or "almost never" order -- or offer -- ovarian cancer screening during a woman's annual exam. The researchers changed the hypothetical patient's age, race and insurance, as well as her genetic and hereditary risk factors for ovarian cancer -- a disease often called the "silent killer" because it goes undetected until it has spread.

From a final pool of more than 1,000 physicians, some six percent of respondents said they routinely ordered or offered ovarian cancer screening for low-risk women, while nearly a quarter said they regularly offered it to medium-risk women.

To put that in perspective the researchers estimate that, if applied nationally, approximately 1.2 million women in the U.S. would be at risk for undergoing ovarian cancer screening tests -- tests that are potentially harmful.

"We're encouraged that providers are thinking about ovarian cancer as they see their patients; however, we’re concerned by the results of this study, which indicate that providers may be over-testing women for ovarian cancer," said Cara Tenenbaum, vice president for policy and external affairs with the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, who was not associated with the study.

"Invasive surgery is one potential outcome from these tests; another is the thought that we've checked the box on ovarian cancer, and no longer need to worry about it, despite symptoms or risk factors," she continued.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, one of the nation's key government health panels, recommends against routine screening for the disease, saying that there is a relatively low incidence of ovarian cancer in the general population as a woman's lifetime risk of developing the disease is 1 in 71. There is, however, high risk of false positives with the current tests.

Currently, the leading tests for ovarian cancer are the transvaginal ultrasound [TVU], in which doctors insert a probe into a woman's vagina to examine her ovaries, and a blood test looking for CA 125, a protein that can be present in abnormally high levels among women with ovarian cancer.

But results from the large Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial published last year found that 8 percent of women who underwent regular blood tests and ultrasounds had false positives, and nearly a third of them underwent unnecessary surgery. A small percentage had serious complications.

All of which begs the question: Why do doctors regularly ignore the fact that no major medical organization currently recommends regular screening?

According to the study's authors, many simply overestimate a woman's ovarian cancer risk in the first place, and groups like the American Cancer Society do state that women with a strong family history "may be screened." The authors also suggest that doctors may be more inclined to order tests for patients who request them.

But perhaps more fundamental to the doctors' decision to screen is the study's finding that one in three indicated a belief that the current testing options are effective.

"I do not understand why a third of the physicians believe [transvaginal ultrasound] or CA 125 are effective screening tests for ovarian cancer, since there is evidence to the contrary and no organization recommends these tests for screening," Dr. Laura-Mae Baldwin, a member of the department of family medicine at the University of Washington and one of the study's authors, told The Huffington Post.

Of course, guidelines from groups like the USPTF apply to the population at large. High-risk women with a strong family history of the disease or certain gene mutations may want to consider testing.

"Women at high risk of developing ovarian cancer should consult with their doctors about a monitoring protocol or preventive surgery," Tenenbaum said, calling out what she identified as a pressing need for research into better screening options.

For the general population -- at relatively low risk for the disease -- pelvic examinations may be the best screening option currently available to us, experts say.

"That's really what you need to do," said Dr. Rebecca Liu, a gynecologic oncologist with the University of Michigan Medical School who cautioned that the symptoms of ovarian cancer are often ignored. "We can't do this out of fear until we find something better."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

No major medical organizations recommend routine ovarian cancer screening, but that hasn't stopped doctors from regularly testing for the disease. According to a new study, primary care physicians and...
No major medical organizations recommend routine ovarian cancer screening, but that hasn't stopped doctors from regularly testing for the disease. According to a new study, primary care physicians and...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 43
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
12:53 AM on 10/28/2012
Hardly anyone really understands how cancer works, do they? I have talked to world-class oncologists in Europe and researched quite a bit, as my mother died of ovarian cancer (or was it abdominal mesothelioma due to the Simian Virus 40 in our polio vaccines?) What I am hearing more and more says It is not a matter of early detection. Some cancers metastasize on day one, before the main cancer is even detectable by current methods. Others remain indolent for decades or even a whole lifetime and cause no problems. If you survive cancer, it is not due to early detection or even treatment unless you have one of the 4% or so of cancers that respond favorably to treatment (approx. 96% do not, and they include the most common varieties). Check your facts; they will set you free. And once we are no longer in denial, we can start working toward a cure. Until then, our false beliefs and all the money to be made on useless treatments impede any hope of one. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/27/the-myth-of-early-detection.html
11:19 PM on 02/13/2012
At the age of 67 I read a small article in a women's magazine that women should ask for a CA125, so I did although I had no symptoms. It was 128, so a transvaginal ultrasound was ordered. I was sent to a gyn/oncology surgeon. A CT was done and a few days later I had surgery. The diagnosis was Stage IIIC primary peritoneal cancer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
10:09 AM on 02/08/2012
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this but are other people having trouble viewing comments. I can see mine or other users comments. Is something wrong with HP's comment section?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
10:06 PM on 02/07/2012
Tracymarie you are incorrect regarding the renal disease even GE admits that you do not need to have renal impairment to get nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.

Why do you comment on my posts. Please go away and stop. I'm trying to inform the public about serious consequences of gadolinium based contrasting agents why do you interfere with that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alisa Neely
i SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS....EQUAL RIGHTS really....i f
06:55 PM on 02/07/2012
i disagree with the task force.....the testing SHOULD happen....my grandmother DIED of the illness....she didn't go to the doctor early on, she DIDN'T believe in them....healiers instead were her thing.....it's BETTER to error on safety , when it comes to health.

alisa

again, it's about a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR BODY.
06:37 PM on 02/07/2012
I'm a 38 year old women that was diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer stage 3C last year. There is no reliable screening test on the market today but there are a couple that are finishing up FDA requirements and should be available within the next year. One of which needs1 drop of blood and costs the lab $0.50 to process. I had the CA125 and the transvaginal ultrasound prior to my diagnosis, neither one showed anything. There are amazing doctors and researchers out there that only want to save lives. If you want to make a difference, find those labs in your area and find ways to support them directly.
10:05 AM on 02/07/2012
Unfortunately, there remains no reliable early detection or screening test for ovarian cancer. The medical data does not show that receiving a transvaginal ultrasound and CA-125 blood test at an annual exam will save women’s lives.

In fact, a multi-year study of almost 80,000 women showed that annual CA-125 tests for six years and annual ultrasounds for four years helped diagnose more women but did not save lives. False positive tests led to unnecessary surgery and associated complications from those surgeries. These are not minor risks; some women died as a result of unnecessary surgeries.

The current tools we have are just not appropriate for annual screening. This is unfortunate, as women diagnosed in early stages of ovarian cancer live longer than those diagnosed in later stages. However, we cannot advocate for policies or practices that are not firmly rooted in the science. Instead, the Alliance urges continued investment in the science so that we can develop better, accurate tools.

Cara Tenenbaum, Ovarian Cancer National Alliance
photo
decat2
"He who governs best,governs least"
08:14 AM on 02/07/2012
As someone who had the frightening experiance of having my wife undergo treatment for this cancer,I can only say to keep up the testing.My wife was diagnossed early,and has been cancer free for seven years now. We have two grown children,and six grandchildren,we have been married nearly fourty years now,and you might call me selfish,but I want to continue with her at my side for another fourty.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scairp
11:25 PM on 02/06/2012
Sorry, but I don't think there is any such thing as "unnecessary" testing for this killer cancer. Almost every single case is found after it is so advanced that surviving it is very remote. I say screen every woman, regardless of family history. Having a genetic history isn't the only critera. I think just being a female with ovaries is a risk. This is a stupid article. Are they trying to get us all killed?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
02:08 AM on 02/07/2012
It's just not a great test. It's not specific and it's not very sensitive. It misses 20-25% of ovarian cancers. While it picks up a variety of other cancers and even benign conditions (like endometriosis).

So, if you get a positive result, you don't really know what cancer they should be looking for nor whether there is even a cancer to find. And if you get a negative result, there's still a good chance that it just missed it, and other clinical indications should be used instead.

It would be nice if we had something better; something that doesn't unnecessarily scare and something that can give one confidence after a negative result.
07:41 PM on 02/06/2012
Yet not long after Gilda's death from ovarian cancer, Gene Wilder made an ad telling women to "demand" a CA-125 test from their doctor.
So which is it ?
photo
decat2
"He who governs best,governs least"
10:50 AM on 02/07/2012
What it is,Libsfearme is the beginning of "Obama care",once implimented,all procedures are going to be second-guessed. Medical care will NOT be desided by Doctors,but by some beraucrat,pinching pennys,much to the detriment of patients.
11:16 AM on 02/07/2012
Insurance companies have long been deciding who gets care and who doesn't.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
traceymarie
the President is black, deal with it
03:31 PM on 02/07/2012
you are extremely uninformed on the affordable care act and who right now decides your HC
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alisa Neely
i SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS....EQUAL RIGHTS really....i f
06:59 PM on 02/07/2012
women should DO what THEY FEEL IS BEST FOR THEMSELVES.

ALISA
07:20 PM on 02/06/2012
My sister went to the doctor for years complaining of the vague symptoms of ovarian cancer, but not one of them thought to test her for ovarian CA. It was finally found on her yearly pap because the cancer had spread so far. It was stage III B by that time. She fought this disease for 3 1/2 years, but did not win the battle. I miss her everyday. I wish to God someone had done a CA 125. Her numbers were astronomical when they finally did the test. Neither a CA125 or vaginal ultrasound are harmful. If they are, then the technician is doing something wrong. If your life or a loved one's life is saved because of the testing, you will never feel it is unecessary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
09:56 PM on 02/06/2012
jenchar I am also high risk. Did you know that we have the technology to detect ovarian cancer and the test is non-invasive and only requires a drop of blood? And did you know that the NIH was involved in the development of the test but due to corruption at the NIH and the FDA we can't get this test in this country? It has been approved in Europe and Japan but not here. The test is called Ovacheck and it uses a decade-old technology called proteomics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demforpeace55
05:12 PM on 02/11/2012
I agree and as the daughter in law of a beautiful woman who died of this dreaded disease at 58, I am especially concerned for my adult daughters. I am so sorry that your sister lost her battle. Do you mind telling me which of the vague symptoms your sister complained of and how long she had them? Maybe talking to real people who've been affected with Ovarian cancer, and to the family members who loved them will be more helpful than listening to the "experts" who basically tell you not to worry about anything until it's too late. Like you, I can't imagine how these tests are harmful. What's involved in a vaginal ultrasound? People have equally "invasive" procedures every day in order to save their lives. Before bypass surgery had been improved, my dad had his ribs broken and his chest cut open in the eighties...this gave him an additional eight years of life...Prostate screenings for men are a routine part of physical exams for men. .Why are women's health issues so unimportant?..just because it MIGHT not reveal anything? Until the amount of research to determine Ovarian Cancer causes and cures matches the efforts to diagnose and cure other cancers, woman will continue to die because someone decided that testing was just too risky.
07:02 PM on 02/06/2012
1-71 is not a low number.
09:29 PM on 02/06/2012
I don't think it is either. Especially with ovarian cancer. Most aren't diagnosed (and not by any fault of the patient) until the later stages.
07:02 PM on 02/06/2012
My mother died of ovarian cancer. In the six months before she was diagnosed, she went to the doctor multiple times for abdominal discomfort, pain, and bloating. She was told every time she must be having intestinal issues. No tests were ordered. Her father died of breast cancer, along with her three sisters. That fact alone raised her risk for breast cancer and ovarian cancer. I am in my 50's and I am definitely having ultrasound screening every six months as my doctor feels this is the best way for me to try and catch the cancer early should I get it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
09:41 PM on 02/06/2012
I have a BRCA mutation and I get pelvic ultrasounds every six months so I'm with you.

I was in a study back in 2002. They were developing a test for ovarian cancer using proteomics and knowing I had the mutation I signed up. The test was called Ovacheck, however due to corruption at the NIH and the FDA the test is still not approved for use in the US. The test is non-invasive and only requires a drop of blood and it is highly accurate. It is approved in Japan and Europe and it's the best test we have available. I believe the FDA won't approve it in the US because it will reduce revenue streams to their paymasters but not sure. I do know that the company that testified regarding the corruption went bankrupt and still we do not have access to this very powerful diagnostic testing. It can be used to detect any cancer or disease. In my opinion this is the problem with this country's healthcare system. It is predatory and forces the patient population to get expensive scans and treatments that don't work while less invasive and less costly ones are not approved. We simply have to wake up to what is going on. Watch Cut, Poison Burn to get an idea of what I am talking about. You can go to the companies website as well. I have no financial interest in this company. http://www.correlogic.com/
11:23 AM on 02/07/2012
Women definitely need better tests. I have never had a CA-125 because of my mother's experience. Her test was normal, even during her surgery to remove a 5 pound ovarian mass. The CA-125 did not elevate until more than 24 hours after her surgery and then it was over 1000.
06:56 PM on 02/06/2012
No one said what the "substantial potential harms" of the screening were. False positives? Or are the blood tests and ultrasound the cause of the harms? Of course, wasting money is a harm too, but if there are other physical harms, please let us know.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
09:50 PM on 02/06/2012
For me the harm occurred when I got annual MRIs with gadolinium based contrasting agents (GBCAs) for my breast cancer risk and became ill from the contrasting agents. These highly toxic GBCAs are injected in the patient to get pretty pictures. It causes a new often times fatal man-made disease called nephrogenic systemic fibrosis which I now have and am totally disabled. They will tell you that you have to have kidney disease to get this disease but I can attest to the fact that you don't need kidney disease to get this disease. I was cancer free and healthy but now I'm cancer free and poisoned, unable to get out of bed on some days.

The authors are beating around the bush because they don't want to discuss MRIs with GBCAs due to the liability of GE and Bayer in my case. Over 300M doses have been administer and at least 1% of every dose stays in the body. Many are sick from these GBCAs but don't know why they are sick. It took me ten years to figure it out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
traceymarie
the President is black, deal with it
03:38 PM on 02/07/2012
You forgot the key point....only if you have renal failure or kidney problems does the MRI material have any negative effect on an individual.
06:55 PM on 02/06/2012
Gilda Radner. Ask her family if early testing is wasteful. Askany family who has lost a spouse, a mother. Is it really that expensive? My family history, when I was diagnosied was nil for breast cancer. Should they have waited and let me die? I feel the same for women who feel, or doctors who feel that it is prudent to test. I am alive because of early detection, early intervention. That was 16 years ago. My brother is dead, his cancer was not diagnosed until it was absolutely huge. he lived 6 years, and caring cost a fortune. Mine, early was so much cheaper and life giving. Let these women and their docs decide. If they must, let those who can afford it, pay for their own, but don't deny a woman testing, that is playing poker with no chance of winning.