The problem is these additional tests you mention have false positives as well. Additionally, screening always increases chance of overdiagnosis – finding early “cancers” (i.e. look like cancer under the microscope) that would never progress in one’s lifetime or even regress on its own but today no tests can tell the difference. You’ll say – it’s less of a problem than missing a real cancer, except for treatment has risks as well. Is one woman’s losing ovaries (and suffering all the risks that come with it) worse another woman’s life being saved? What about 20 women losing their ovaries? Keep in mind that living without ovaries increases risk of heart disease as well as osteoporosis. It may be a small price to pay if you had cancer that was destined to spread but what about if someone could’ve lived her life and died at the age of 90 without even knowing she had cancer?

All cancers aren’t equal. Some are very aggressive so no amount of screening will help. Some are indolent and never spread or regress on its own. Some grow slowly so even when they are detected later – like in your case when you had symptoms – they are still treatable. Whether or not screening helps depends a lot if for a particular cancer there is a group of cancers that grow fast enough to spread between the time they are detected by a test and the time they cause symptoms yet slow enough that screening can catch them during this time. It is questionable if in case of ovarian cancer this group even exists, as well as how large it is if it does.