Coverage of Ovarian Cancer Screening
Jun. 12th, 2011 06:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutLots of secondary coverage of a JAMA article about some of the data generated by the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian) Cancer Screening Trial.
"Not only do the screenings apparently not reduce mortality rates, they are also associated with nausea, bruising, bleeding and fainting, the researchers revealed. Unnecessary diagnostic tests caused by false positives may lead to heart problems, bowel injury and infection. 1,080 of the women with false-positive results had their ovaries surgically removed, and 222 of them had a major surgical complication."
Wow. Is _that_ compelling enough to generate a, hey, we really shouldn't recommend this screening strategy?
Yes! It _is_!
"Edward Partridge, M.D., director of the UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center and president of the American Cancer Society Inc., said," relatively unambiguously, we shouldn't do this.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/228244.php
And many, many other articles.
"Not only do the screenings apparently not reduce mortality rates, they are also associated with nausea, bruising, bleeding and fainting, the researchers revealed. Unnecessary diagnostic tests caused by false positives may lead to heart problems, bowel injury and infection. 1,080 of the women with false-positive results had their ovaries surgically removed, and 222 of them had a major surgical complication."
Wow. Is _that_ compelling enough to generate a, hey, we really shouldn't recommend this screening strategy?
Yes! It _is_!
"Edward Partridge, M.D., director of the UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center and president of the American Cancer Society Inc., said," relatively unambiguously, we shouldn't do this.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/228244.php
And many, many other articles.