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

[Anonymous]

Ovarian runs in my family. Being on the pill decreases my chances substantially. It slightly increases my chances of breast cancer so I get my mammograms. There is a highly unreliable bloodtest for ovarian. I don't get that. I just try to eat healthy and if I ever have warning signs I will be aggressive about checking things out.

[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

It isn’t a defeatist attitude at all. It is acknowledging that not all interventions are beneficial and shouldn’t be used just because someone *thinks* it would be helpful. This is why evidence-based medicine is so important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ovarian runs in my family. Being on the pill decreases my chances substantially. It slightly increases my chances of breast cancer so I get my mammograms. There is a highly unreliable bloodtest for ovarian. I don't get that. I just try to eat healthy and if I ever have warning signs I will be aggressive about checking things out.

Isn’t ovarian cancer like pancreatic cancer, in that it is too late by the time symptoms appear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ovarian runs in my family. Being on the pill decreases my chances substantially. It slightly increases my chances of breast cancer so I get my mammograms. There is a highly unreliable bloodtest for ovarian. I don't get that. I just try to eat healthy and if I ever have warning signs I will be aggressive about checking things out.

Isn’t ovarian cancer like pancreatic cancer, in that it is too late by the time symptoms appear?

Who is posting all this misinformation? Do you not realize that not all pancreatic and ovarian cancers are 100% fatal? People have survived these. In the end we all die anyway of something, so those patients who “survive “ cancer will die of something else anyway, just like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If OP is truly at high risk and/or has the genetic marker for it then she should get an oophorectom/hysterectomy. These ultrasounds are not shown to reduce risk or even to catch early cancers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ovarian runs in my family. Being on the pill decreases my chances substantially. It slightly increases my chances of breast cancer so I get my mammograms. There is a highly unreliable bloodtest for ovarian. I don't get that. I just try to eat healthy and if I ever have warning signs I will be aggressive about checking things out.

Isn’t ovarian cancer like pancreatic cancer, in that it is too late by the time symptoms appear?

Who is posting all this misinformation? Do you not realize that not all pancreatic and ovarian cancers are 100% fatal? People have survived these. In the end we all die anyway of something, so those patients who “survive “ cancer will die of something else anyway, just like everyone else.

In my circle of friends and family, those who have been diagnosed with either have been dead within 2-3 years…including my DH’s 27yo cousin (ovarian cancer). Statistics indicate the likelihood of long-term survival with either is low, and early diagnosis rarely happens because symptoms aren’t obvious until it is too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ovarian runs in my family. Being on the pill decreases my chances substantially. It slightly increases my chances of breast cancer so I get my mammograms. There is a highly unreliable bloodtest for ovarian. I don't get that. I just try to eat healthy and if I ever have warning signs I will be aggressive about checking things out.

Isn’t ovarian cancer like pancreatic cancer, in that it is too late by the time symptoms appear?

Who is posting all this misinformation? Do you not realize that not all pancreatic and ovarian cancers are 100% fatal? People have survived these. In the end we all die anyway of something, so those patients who “survive “ cancer will die of something else anyway, just like everyone else.

In my circle of friends and family, those who have been diagnosed with either have been dead within 2-3 years…including my DH’s 27yo cousin (ovarian cancer). Statistics indicate the likelihood of long-term survival with either is low, and early diagnosis rarely happens because symptoms aren’t obvious until it is too late.

Go to hystersisters and read from all the people posting who are still alive after their uterine, cervical, or ovarian cancer diagnosis and surgery. One patient is not the next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ovarian runs in my family. Being on the pill decreases my chances substantially. It slightly increases my chances of breast cancer so I get my mammograms. There is a highly unreliable bloodtest for ovarian. I don't get that. I just try to eat healthy and if I ever have warning signs I will be aggressive about checking things out.

Isn’t ovarian cancer like pancreatic cancer, in that it is too late by the time symptoms appear?

Who is posting all this misinformation? Do you not realize that not all pancreatic and ovarian cancers are 100% fatal? People have survived these. In the end we all die anyway of something, so those patients who “survive “ cancer will die of something else anyway, just like everyone else.

In my circle of friends and family, those who have been diagnosed with either have been dead within 2-3 years…including my DH’s 27yo cousin (ovarian cancer). Statistics indicate the likelihood of long-term survival with either is low, and early diagnosis rarely happens because symptoms aren’t obvious until it is too late.

Go to hystersisters and read from all the people posting who are still alive after their uterine, cervical, or ovarian cancer diagnosis and surgery. One patient is not the next.

Uterine and cervical cancer are totally different cancers from ovarian cancers (and each other), with different 5-year survival rates. I wouldn't describe any of uterine or cervical cancer survival rates as "low." A 40% survival rate is low to me.

In 2013:

Uterine: 79%
Cervical: 68%
Ovarian: 40%

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3859169/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ovarian runs in my family. Being on the pill decreases my chances substantially. It slightly increases my chances of breast cancer so I get my mammograms. There is a highly unreliable bloodtest for ovarian. I don't get that. I just try to eat healthy and if I ever have warning signs I will be aggressive about checking things out.

Isn’t ovarian cancer like pancreatic cancer, in that it is too late by the time symptoms appear?

Who is posting all this misinformation? Do you not realize that not all pancreatic and ovarian cancers are 100% fatal? People have survived these. In the end we all die anyway of something, so those patients who “survive “ cancer will die of something else anyway, just like everyone else.

In my circle of friends and family, those who have been diagnosed with either have been dead within 2-3 years…including my DH’s 27yo cousin (ovarian cancer). Statistics indicate the likelihood of long-term survival with either is low, and early diagnosis rarely happens because symptoms aren’t obvious until it is too late.

Go to hystersisters and read from all the people posting who are still alive after their uterine, cervical, or ovarian cancer diagnosis and surgery. One patient is not the next.

Yeah, I get that. My mom is a 20-year survivor of endometrial cancer. Ovarian cancer is an entirely different beast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mother died as a result of ovarian cancer. I have yearly pelvic ultrasounds. It's not a silver bullet, but it's the best option there is right now for early detection.

Can ovarian cancer be survived with early intervention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a hysterectomy and the dr. recommended fallopian tube removal as, he said, fallopian tubes are often the trouble makers in gynecological related cancers. We left the ovaries.

I am so glad I had a hysterectomy and glad I did it while relatively young, for a speedy recovery. Highly recommend.

Were you at risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I may be an outlier, but my doctor does a pelvic is every year. I am 38 and never did fertility treatments nor do I have PCOS. I don’t find it too uncomfortable and thought it was standard. He looks at ovaries and uterus. Always comments on how uterus looks good and ovaries are smaller than normal. We also do yearly Pap smear and breast exam…

Wouod you feel comfortable disclosing where you go? Your dr sounds great for my personality. I prefer a conservative approach due to my increased risk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may be an outlier, but my doctor does a pelvic is every year. I am 38 and never did fertility treatments nor do I have PCOS. I don’t find it too uncomfortable and thought it was standard. He looks at ovaries and uterus. Always comments on how uterus looks good and ovaries are smaller than normal. We also do yearly Pap smear and breast exam…

Wouod you feel comfortable disclosing where you go? Your dr sounds great for my personality. I prefer a conservative approach due to my increased risk

There is no reliable screening for early detection. Ultrasounds aren’t it, sorry to tell you. They just aren’t reliable at detecting ovarian cancer early and don’t change outcomes. Read up on it.

https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/detection.html

[Anonymous]

There has been some research that indicates ovarian cancer doesn’t actually start in the ovaries. It is now emerging that it starts on the fallopian tubes but the tumors are can only be seen under microscopic examination. These tumors travel and spread to the ovaries. But the time they are growing in the ovaries and are large enough to be seen on an ultrasound, the cancer is no longer in early stages. Which maybe explains why diagnostic ultrasounds don’t change death rates or really provide any beneficial outcome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother died as a result of ovarian cancer. I have yearly pelvic ultrasounds. It's not a silver bullet, but it's the best option there is right now for early detection.

Can ovarian cancer be survived with early intervention?

Early detection of ovarian cancer is unlikely, unless it is an incidental finding.