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

Forum Index » Health and Medicine

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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..

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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 [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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

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

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 [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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 [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics