Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
SynopsisO

Ovarian cancer screening

Usha Menon
CMAJ August 17, 2004 171 (4) 323-324; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1031298
Usha Menon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Ovarian Screening
    David M Allen
    Posted on: 27 September 2004
  • misquote
    erica l eason
    Posted on: 09 September 2004
  • Posted on: (27 September 2004)
    Ovarian Screening
    • David M Allen, 410-65 Larch St. Sudbury, ON P3E 1B8

    Usha Menon, in an analysis of ovarian cancer screening, pointed out that the best evidence for screening for ovarian cancer came from a study that found a sigificant difference in median survival with screening without finding an actual difference in the number of deaths from ovarian or fallopian tube cancer. This sounds like it could be a classic example of lead time bias, in which we make an earlier diagnosis in a dis...

    Show More

    Usha Menon, in an analysis of ovarian cancer screening, pointed out that the best evidence for screening for ovarian cancer came from a study that found a sigificant difference in median survival with screening without finding an actual difference in the number of deaths from ovarian or fallopian tube cancer. This sounds like it could be a classic example of lead time bias, in which we make an earlier diagnosis in a disease where we make no impact on the outcome of the disease. The patient may die of the disease at the same time as if the diagnosis had been made thirty months later. Median survival may appear better, but in fact all we've done is given the patient a longer cancer experience, without giving them a better quality or quantity of life. If this is the best evidence for ovarian cancer screening, then I certainly agree that "Screening is not currently recommended for the general population".

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (9 September 2004)
    misquote
    • erica l eason

    Dear editor,

    Usha Menon's review of ovarian cancer screening misquotes the result of the randomised controlled trial of screening with CA 125 and ultrasonography by Jacobs et al. The correct number of deaths from ovarian cancer was 18/10,977 in the control group and 9/10,958 in the screened group (RR of death in the unscreened group 2.0, 95% CI 0.78- 5.13). (The article stated the reverse.) While the difference...

    Show More

    Dear editor,

    Usha Menon's review of ovarian cancer screening misquotes the result of the randomised controlled trial of screening with CA 125 and ultrasonography by Jacobs et al. The correct number of deaths from ovarian cancer was 18/10,977 in the control group and 9/10,958 in the screened group (RR of death in the unscreened group 2.0, 95% CI 0.78- 5.13). (The article stated the reverse.) While the difference in deaths is not statistically significant, this represents a possible halving of the death rate by screening, rather than a possible doubling.

    Sincerely, Erica Eason, MDCM, FRCSC. Associate professor, obstetrics & gynaecology, U of Ottawa.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 171 (4)
CMAJ
Vol. 171, Issue 4
17 Aug 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ovarian cancer screening
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Ovarian cancer screening
Usha Menon
CMAJ Aug 2004, 171 (4) 323-324; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1031298

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Ovarian cancer screening
Usha Menon
CMAJ Aug 2004, 171 (4) 323-324; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1031298
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • The future
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Ovarian cancer screening
  • Ovarian cancer screening
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Applying the 2005 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations: 4. Managing uncomplicated hypertension
  • A newborn requiring selective bronchial intubation
  • Does β-blocker prophylaxis improve survival after major noncardiac surgery?
Show more Synopsis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Screening & diagnostic tests
    • Cancer: gynecological

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire