<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Screening for ovarian cancer redux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html</link>
	<description>medical blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:59:44 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: MuchaDO</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-87134</link>
		<dc:creator>MuchaDO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html#comment-87134</guid>
		<description>The article states that 1 in 3000 women will have ovarian cancer in their lifetimes.  With a false positive rate of ~ 1%, 30 of 3000 women will be shown to be &quot;positive&quot; for a higher risk of malignant cancer.  &lt;br/&gt;At 95% sensitivity, the one woman in 3000 will be found, but so will thirty others.  What are the odds that YOU are that one?  About 1/31 or 3 percent.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I wouldn&#039;t be particularly anxious to have my ovaries removed if my risk was only increased by 3 %. Would you?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article states that 1 in 3000 women will have ovarian cancer in their lifetimes.  With a false positive rate of ~ 1%, 30 of 3000 women will be shown to be &#8220;positive&#8221; for a higher risk of malignant cancer.  <br />At 95% sensitivity, the one woman in 3000 will be found, but so will thirty others.  What are the odds that YOU are that one?  About 1/31 or 3 percent.  </p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t be particularly anxious to have my ovaries removed if my risk was only increased by 3 %. Would you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Lepley, D.O.</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-87125</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Lepley, D.O.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html#comment-87125</guid>
		<description>This summarizes preliminary results from the ovarian cancer screening arm of the PLCO trial:&lt;br/&gt;http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov2005/nci-07a.htm&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In this study of 28,816 women screened with a CA-125 and transvaginal US, 29 tumors were detected out of 570 women who ultimately ended up having a surgical procedure. 541 women underwent surgery who didn&#039;t have cancer. If my math is correct, a woman was almost 20X more likely to have unnecessary surgery than have cancer detected as a result of screening, and it&#039;s not known if these 29 women increased their life expectancy with earlier detection.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In short, i would be extremely skeptical of any screening test for ovarian cancer without randomized controlled trials.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This summarizes preliminary results from the ovarian cancer screening arm of the PLCO trial:<br /><a href="http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov2005/nci-07a.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov2005/nci-07a.htm</a></p>
<p>In this study of 28,816 women screened with a CA-125 and transvaginal US, 29 tumors were detected out of 570 women who ultimately ended up having a surgical procedure. 541 women underwent surgery who didn&#8217;t have cancer. If my math is correct, a woman was almost 20X more likely to have unnecessary surgery than have cancer detected as a result of screening, and it&#8217;s not known if these 29 women increased their life expectancy with earlier detection.</p>
<p>In short, i would be extremely skeptical of any screening test for ovarian cancer without randomized controlled trials.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PharmacistMike</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-87123</link>
		<dc:creator>PharmacistMike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/08/screening-for-ovarian-cancer-2.html#comment-87123</guid>
		<description>It would be wonderful to see a screening test for ovarian cancer but this is starting to smell like the female version of the PSA test. With no real ability for biopsies there may be a lot of ovaries removed unnecessarily.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be wonderful to see a screening test for ovarian cancer but this is starting to smell like the female version of the PSA test. With no real ability for biopsies there may be a lot of ovaries removed unnecessarily.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
