Is a yearly pelvic ultrasound sufficient to protect against uterine/ ovarian cancer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I understand that this is recommending against universal screening. But an individual woman may have individual risk factors that may cause the benefits to outweigh the risk of false positives. Plus, there is a big difference about when women’s cancers “can” be detected in the absence of screening and “when” they are actually detected. It is a fact that many doctors push women’s pain and other suggestive symptoms aside until things are too far along. All else being equal, I’d appreciate the extra heads up even if I got an ovarian cancer that would kill me. It would give me time to put things in place for my young children, ease the burden of my passing for my spouse, and let me take advantage of hospice services that would increase my QOL.

I agree that in some individuals with a higher risk, perhaps it would be beneficial. But having medical anxiety is not a risk factor…which it sounds like OP’s case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I understand that this is recommending against universal screening. But an individual woman may have individual risk factors that may cause the benefits to outweigh the risk of false positives. Plus, there is a big difference about when women’s cancers “can” be detected in the absence of screening and “when” they are actually detected. It is a fact that many doctors push women’s pain and other suggestive symptoms aside until things are too far along. All else being equal, I’d appreciate the extra heads up even if I got an ovarian cancer that would kill me. It would give me time to put things in place for my young children, ease the burden of my passing for my spouse, and let me take advantage of hospice services that would increase my QOL.

I agree that in some individuals with a higher risk, perhaps it would be beneficial. But having medical anxiety is not a risk factor…which it sounds like OP’s case.

Op - I have three risk factors but to protest your point - mammograms, colonoscopies and prostate exams are also recommended without risk factors based on ‘medical anxiety’ so I don’t think that’s fair
Pelvic ultrasounds are given yearly in several parts of the world, just not the us. I think having one is entirely reasonable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I understand that this is recommending against universal screening. But an individual woman may have individual risk factors that may cause the benefits to outweigh the risk of false positives. Plus, there is a big difference about when women’s cancers “can” be detected in the absence of screening and “when” they are actually detected. It is a fact that many doctors push women’s pain and other suggestive symptoms aside until things are too far along. All else being equal, I’d appreciate the extra heads up even if I got an ovarian cancer that would kill me. It would give me time to put things in place for my young children, ease the burden of my passing for my spouse, and let me take advantage of hospice services that would increase my QOL.

I agree that in some individuals with a higher risk, perhaps it would be beneficial. But having medical anxiety is not a risk factor…which it sounds like OP’s case.

Op - I have three risk factors but to protest your point - mammograms, colonoscopies and prostate exams are also recommended without risk factors based on ‘medical anxiety’ so I don’t think that’s fair
Pelvic ultrasounds are given yearly in several parts of the world, just not the us. I think having one is entirely reasonable

Those screening tools actually help locate early , not yet symptomatic cancers and increase survival rates. Pelvic ultrasounds unfortunately do not Do this. They do not reliably see early ovarian cancers that can be easily cured. I’m sorry but this is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious why you think ovarian and uterine cancers are “quite common”? That wasn’t my understanding at all, and doing a quick google search says both of these are rare. Do you mean you’re at a higher risk because of the other cancer you had? Not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand where you’re getting your stats from.

??
Ovarian cancer alone is 5th most common cancer

Not to mention, by the time you have real symptoms for most people you are already stage 3/4. Many doctors write off those symptoms as typical "female issues". Ultrasound yearly is a decent way to find any issues earlier than normal.

Why do you say this? What data do you have that suggests a yearly ultrasound improves outcomes?

Not PP but you do realize ovarian cancer is not a 100% death outcome? How can a yearly ultrasound not improve any chance of catching a mass earlier as compared to no ultrasound ever?

The data isn’t there, even for high-risk patients. Small lesions on the ovary are not easily seen on an ultrasound.

Because "early detection" of cancer isn't the panacea most of us think it is. For some cancers, it's likely that by detecting cancer early, you just know you have cancer for a longer period of time. It doesn't actually increase the odds of survival. (This is definitely NOT true for all types of cancer.)

Op - 10000% agree with this.
To me a pelvic ultrasound makes sense because if you detect either uterine or ovarian cancer early, you can in fact remove the entire reproductive system. I am much less inclined to get lung or brain cts only to discover something you can do nothing about.
False positives are a concern with any screening, much like mammo

And you remove your entire reproductive system, go into forced menopause, and develop osteoporosis at age 50. For a false positive screen. This is good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious why you think ovarian and uterine cancers are “quite common”? That wasn’t my understanding at all, and doing a quick google search says both of these are rare. Do you mean you’re at a higher risk because of the other cancer you had? Not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand where you’re getting your stats from.

??
Ovarian cancer alone is 5th most common cancer

Not to mention, by the time you have real symptoms for most people you are already stage 3/4. Many doctors write off those symptoms as typical "female issues". Ultrasound yearly is a decent way to find any issues earlier than normal.

Why do you say this? What data do you have that suggests a yearly ultrasound improves outcomes?

Not PP but you do realize ovarian cancer is not a 100% death outcome? How can a yearly ultrasound not improve any chance of catching a mass earlier as compared to no ultrasound ever?

The data isn’t there, even for high-risk patients. Small lesions on the ovary are not easily seen on an ultrasound.

Because "early detection" of cancer isn't the panacea most of us think it is. For some cancers, it's likely that by detecting cancer early, you just know you have cancer for a longer period of time. It doesn't actually increase the odds of survival. (This is definitely NOT true for all types of cancer.)

Op - 10000% agree with this.
To me a pelvic ultrasound makes sense because if you detect either uterine or ovarian cancer early, you can in fact remove the entire reproductive system. I am much less inclined to get lung or brain cts only to discover something you can do nothing about.
False positives are a concern with any screening, much like mammo

And you remove your entire reproductive system, go into forced menopause, and develop osteoporosis at age 50. For a false positive screen. This is good?

And this would be only be if they found evidence of disease, right? So that’s preferable to being dead of cancer, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I understand that this is recommending against universal screening. But an individual woman may have individual risk factors that may cause the benefits to outweigh the risk of false positives. Plus, there is a big difference about when women’s cancers “can” be detected in the absence of screening and “when” they are actually detected. It is a fact that many doctors push women’s pain and other suggestive symptoms aside until things are too far along. All else being equal, I’d appreciate the extra heads up even if I got an ovarian cancer that would kill me. It would give me time to put things in place for my young children, ease the burden of my passing for my spouse, and let me take advantage of hospice services that would increase my QOL.

I agree that in some individuals with a higher risk, perhaps it would be beneficial. But having medical anxiety is not a risk factor…which it sounds like OP’s case.

Op - I have three risk factors but to protest your point - mammograms, colonoscopies and prostate exams are also recommended without risk factors based on ‘medical anxiety’ so I don’t think that’s fair
Pelvic ultrasounds are given yearly in several parts of the world, just not the us. I think having one is entirely reasonable

Those screening tools actually help locate early , not yet symptomatic cancers and increase survival rates. Pelvic ultrasounds unfortunately do not Do this. They do not reliably see early ovarian cancers that can be easily cured. I’m sorry but this is true.

This. It isn’t beneficial OP. It is causing you for risk and anxiety with no benefit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I understand that this is recommending against universal screening. But an individual woman may have individual risk factors that may cause the benefits to outweigh the risk of false positives. Plus, there is a big difference about when women’s cancers “can” be detected in the absence of screening and “when” they are actually detected. It is a fact that many doctors push women’s pain and other suggestive symptoms aside until things are too far along. All else being equal, I’d appreciate the extra heads up even if I got an ovarian cancer that would kill me. It would give me time to put things in place for my young children, ease the burden of my passing for my spouse, and let me take advantage of hospice services that would increase my QOL.

I agree that in some individuals with a higher risk, perhaps it would be beneficial. But having medical anxiety is not a risk factor…which it sounds like OP’s case.

Op - I have three risk factors but to protest your point - mammograms, colonoscopies and prostate exams are also recommended without risk factors based on ‘medical anxiety’ so I don’t think that’s fair
Pelvic ultrasounds are given yearly in several parts of the world, just not the us. I think having one is entirely reasonable

Those screening tools actually help locate early , not yet symptomatic cancers and increase survival rates. Pelvic ultrasounds unfortunately do not Do this. They do not reliably see early ovarian cancers that can be easily cured. I’m sorry but this is true.

This. It isn’t beneficial OP. It is causing you for risk and anxiety with no benefit

Not OP but I completely disagree with this defeatist attitude. And I think it reduces anxiety, not increases it. Just like a mammogram

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I understand that this is recommending against universal screening. But an individual woman may have individual risk factors that may cause the benefits to outweigh the risk of false positives. Plus, there is a big difference about when women’s cancers “can” be detected in the absence of screening and “when” they are actually detected. It is a fact that many doctors push women’s pain and other suggestive symptoms aside until things are too far along. All else being equal, I’d appreciate the extra heads up even if I got an ovarian cancer that would kill me. It would give me time to put things in place for my young children, ease the burden of my passing for my spouse, and let me take advantage of hospice services that would increase my QOL.

I agree that in some individuals with a higher risk, perhaps it would be beneficial. But having medical anxiety is not a risk factor…which it sounds like OP’s case.

Op - I have three risk factors but to protest your point - mammograms, colonoscopies and prostate exams are also recommended without risk factors based on ‘medical anxiety’ so I don’t think that’s fair
Pelvic ultrasounds are given yearly in several parts of the world, just not the us. I think having one is entirely reasonable

Those screening tools actually help locate early , not yet symptomatic cancers and increase survival rates. Pelvic ultrasounds unfortunately do not Do this. They do not reliably see early ovarian cancers that can be easily cured. I’m sorry but this is true.

This. It isn’t beneficial OP. It is causing you for risk and anxiety with no benefit

Not OP but I completely disagree with this defeatist attitude. And I think it reduces anxiety, not increases it. Just like a mammogram

But does it reduce ovarian cancer death, and the answer is no. Anxiety is treated with therapy and/or Xanax, not ultrasounds. That is a huge waste of medical resources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I know more people who have died from ovarian or uterine cancer than any other cancer. Both asymptomatic till late stages. Idk why ppl assume these cancers are rare

Then you know an odd group of people. Ovarian and uterine cancers kill a much lower number is people than, say, breast cancer, every year.

Breast cancer is the cancer that kills the most women per year. uterine cancer is among the top 5, it is not rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I know more people who have died from ovarian or uterine cancer than any other cancer. Both asymptomatic till late stages. Idk why ppl assume these cancers are rare

Then you know an odd group of people. Ovarian and uterine cancers kill a much lower number is people than, say, breast cancer, every year.

Breast cancer is the cancer that kills the most women per year. uterine cancer is among the top 5, it is not rare.

About 3 million people die in the US every year. Of those, about 12,000 are from uterine cancer. It is not a too 5 cancer. For women, it is (1) lung, (2) breast, (3) colon, (4) pancreatic, and (5) ovarian.

Nonetheless, routine ultrasounds make sense if they actually change outcomes. There is no evidence that is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I know more people who have died from ovarian or uterine cancer than any other cancer. Both asymptomatic till late stages. Idk why ppl assume these cancers are rare

Then you know an odd group of people. Ovarian and uterine cancers kill a much lower number is people than, say, breast cancer, every year.

Breast cancer is the cancer that kills the most women per year. uterine cancer is among the top 5, it is not rare.

Lung cancer is. Breast is #2.

[Anonymous]

I have Lynch syndrome, which raises the risk of both ovarian and uterine cancers. I had both before I knew I had this genetic mutation. For those of us who do have it, it is recommended to have a hysterectomy and ovaries taken out by age of 40 or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I know more people who have died from ovarian or uterine cancer than any other cancer. Both asymptomatic till late stages. Idk why ppl assume these cancers are rare

Then you know an odd group of people. Ovarian and uterine cancers kill a much lower number is people than, say, breast cancer, every year.

Breast cancer is the cancer that kills the most women per year. uterine cancer is among the top 5, it is not rare.

About 3 million people die in the US every year. Of those, about 12,000 are from uterine cancer. It is not a too 5 cancer. For women, it is (1) lung, (2) breast, (3) colon, (4) pancreatic, and (5) ovarian.

Nonetheless, routine ultrasounds make sense if they actually change outcomes. There is no evidence that is the case.

So what’s the point of the test if it does absolutely zero? Just to confirm you have cancer by the time it’s symptomatic, at which point via every person I know and every case I’ve heard of it’s too late?
I’d rather have false positive and deal with that then die 6 weeks after getting ultrasound for symptomatic disease

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I understand that this is recommending against universal screening. But an individual woman may have individual risk factors that may cause the benefits to outweigh the risk of false positives. Plus, there is a big difference about when women’s cancers “can” be detected in the absence of screening and “when” they are actually detected. It is a fact that many doctors push women’s pain and other suggestive symptoms aside until things are too far along. All else being equal, I’d appreciate the extra heads up even if I got an ovarian cancer that would kill me. It would give me time to put things in place for my young children, ease the burden of my passing for my spouse, and let me take advantage of hospice services that would increase my QOL.

I agree that in some individuals with a higher risk, perhaps it would be beneficial. But having medical anxiety is not a risk factor…which it sounds like OP’s case.

Op - I have three risk factors but to protest your point - mammograms, colonoscopies and prostate exams are also recommended without risk factors based on ‘medical anxiety’ so I don’t think that’s fair
Pelvic ultrasounds are given yearly in several parts of the world, just not the us. I think having one is entirely reasonable

Those screening tools actually help locate early , not yet symptomatic cancers and increase survival rates. Pelvic ultrasounds unfortunately do not Do this. They do not reliably see early ovarian cancers that can be easily cured. I’m sorry but this is true.

This. It isn’t beneficial OP. It is causing you for risk and anxiety with no benefit

Not OP but I completely disagree with this defeatist attitude. And I think it reduces anxiety, not increases it. Just like a mammogram

But does it reduce ovarian cancer death, and the answer is no. Anxiety is treated with therapy and/or Xanax, not ultrasounds. That is a huge waste of medical resources

We’re not talking about the entire population doing this, we’re talking about this OP. It is not a huge waste of medical resources especially if she has a risk factor. It sounds like it’s not coming out of thin air. Also, how did yearly screenings for any health condition come to be? 60 years ago, the entire population over 45 was not being told to get a yearly mammo or a first time colonoscopy. In what year were people told to get their teeth cleaned professionally? Were people going to the Dr being swabbed for flu? No. Shame on you for pushing Xanax and “therapy”. Also, as our population becomes more obese, there will be more uterine cancers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the part of Europe where I’m from, yearly pelvic ultrasounds for women over 40 are recommended/ commonplace. Ultrasounds are a low to no risk scan and can spot cancers early. They are not foolproof - but while uterine and ovarian cancers are not common enough in women under 60 to justify universal screening - they do happen and can be silent and deadly. There’s really no contraindication for having a yearly ultrasound especially if you’ve had ivf, pcos or tamoxifen. I’m surprised at posters who are annoyed at the suggestion.

https://www.acog.org/practice-management/patient-safety-and-quality/partnerships/choosing-wisely

"In population studies, there is only fair evidence that screening of asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 level and/or transvaginal ultrasound can detect ovarian cancer at an earlier stage than it can be detected in the absence of screening. Because of the low prevalence of ovarian cancer and the invasive nature of the interventions required after a positive screening test, the potential harms of screening outweigh the potential benefits"

It is also noted that the majority of positive screenings from ultrasounds are false positives..

I know more people who have died from ovarian or uterine cancer than any other cancer. Both asymptomatic till late stages. Idk why ppl assume these cancers are rare

Then you know an odd group of people. Ovarian and uterine cancers kill a much lower number is people than, say, breast cancer, every year.

Breast cancer is the cancer that kills the most women per year. uterine cancer is among the top 5, it is not rare.

About 3 million people die in the US every year. Of those, about 12,000 are from uterine cancer. It is not a too 5 cancer. For women, it is (1) lung, (2) breast, (3) colon, (4) pancreatic, and (5) ovarian.

Nonetheless, routine ultrasounds make sense if they actually change outcomes. There is no evidence that is the case.

So what’s the point of the test if it does absolutely zero? Just to confirm you have cancer by the time it’s symptomatic, at which point via every person I know and every case I’ve heard of it’s too late?
I’d rather have false positive and deal with that then die 6 weeks after getting ultrasound for symptomatic disease

I do not understand the question. There is no data that suggests that routine ultrasounds do anything to improve outcomes in these cases.