National Cancer Institute Admits Screening for Ovarian Cancer Is Worse Than Useless

Testing, testing, and more testing—that's the holy grail of the cancer industry. In the case of ovarian cancer, it does more harm than good.

by Heidi Stevenson

14 June 2011

The holy grail of modern cancer treatment is testing, testing, and more testing. The theory is that the earlier cancer is detected, the better the outcome. The problem, though, is that studies of the issue don't often support the theory. Another case in point is ovarian cancer testing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has now admitted that early screening for ovarian cancer provides no benefit and produces harm.

The results on ovarian cancer testing come from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, which is focused on determining whether testing improves outcomes. NCI both sponsors and runs it. Trial enrollment of post-menopausal women ran from 1993 through 2001. Ovarian cancer is of particular interest because it has the highest death rate of all gynecological cancers.

118 women in the screening group died of ovarian cancer. 100 in the control group died of ovarian cancer. No results are given for deaths from all causes, so the actual comparison between the two groups is unknown. However, even the official results (118 vs 100 out of a total of nearly 80,000) are statistically insignificant.

Three different methods of detecting ovarian cancer were used. Palpation during vaginal exams was discontinued in 1998 because it was found to be unable to detect cancer early. Even when both were used, transvaginal ultrasound scanning and blood testing for the cancer antigen, CA-125, have now been shown to be useless.

In fact, the results were dismal:

• Only 3.7% of abnormal CA-125 tests predicted ovarian cancer.
• Only 1% of abnormal ultrasound tests accurately predicted ovarian cancer.
• When both the CA-125 and ultrasound tests were positive, the results were accurate only 23.5% of the time.

76.5% of women whose tests produced a positive result went through further procedures.

The study included 39,115 women who received ovarian cancer screening and about the same number of controls who did not. Of the screened women, 1,080 had surgery to remove ovaries that were healthy because of the test results. 163–15%–of those women suffered serious complications of the surgery, including infections and blood clots. It should also be acknowledged that, the new virulent and drug resistant bacteria make the risk of infections more serious and signficant as time goes on.

Not only did the vast majority of women whose tests were false positives suffer from unnecessary anxiety and fear, they were subjected to unneeded and life-changing surgery—and a larger percentage of them also suffered dangerous adverse effects from the unneeded treatment.

These risks might be worthwhile if they saved lives. But the simple fact is that they don't. Testing for ovarian cancer offers absolutely no benefits, but it does incur risks and discomfort for no purpose.

Where's the Fanfare?

Where's the fanfare that usually comes with positive cancer research claims? Where are the reporters getting quotes from experts praising the results? Although this result should save millions of women the nuisance and cost of ovarian cancer tests, not to mention the uneasiness of waiting for results or, worse, facing the risks of further testing and unneeded treatment, adding up to a massive benefit, there's hardly a peep about it.

That tells us something about the real priorities, doesn't it? Something that brings people in by the droves for testing and treatment means that profits go up. So, positive results are hyped to the limit. It doesn't matter how minor the benefit, or how severe the adverse effects, or how preliminary the results might be. If the results can be spun to look like there's a benefit, the mainstream news media screams it in the headlines.

But, when results will keep people away—no matter how great the benefit—profits go down. So, there are no screaming headlines, and only minimal coverage—if even that. What could better demonstrate the profits-first motivation of the cancer industry?

*****************************************************************************

What do you think? Click here to comment!

*****************************************************************************

Search Gaia Health: