200,000-women study concludes that ovarian cancer screening with ultrasounds or blood tests does not reduce early deaths

Credit: Wallgreens
Credit: Wallgreens

In the UK, 4,000 women die from ovarian cancer each year. It is not usually diagnosed until it is at a late stage and hard to treat. [The UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening] was designed to test the hypothesis that a reliable screening method that picks up ovarian cancer earlier, when treatments are more likely to be effective, could save lives.

The latest analysis looked at data from more than 200,000 women aged 50-74 at recruitment who were followed up for an average of 16 years. The women were randomly allocated to one of three groups: no screening, annual screening using an ultrasound scan, and annual multimodal screening involving a blood test followed by an ultrasound scan as a second line test.

The researchers found that, while the approach using multimodal testing succeeded in picking up cancers at an early stage, neither screening method led to a reduction in deaths.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

“UKCTOCS is the first trial to show that screening can definitely detect ovarian cancer earlier. However, this very large, rigorous trial shows clearly that screening using either of the approaches we tested did not save lives. We therefore cannot recommend ovarian cancer screening for the general population using these methods,” [said Professor Usha Menon.]

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-1.39.26-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Safer for children?’ Stonyfield yogurt under fire for deceptive organic marketing
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-10.46.29-AM
Viewpoint: How to counter science disinformation? Science journalist offers 12 practical tips
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_16_37-PM-2
Viewpoint: Are cancer rates ‘skyrocketing’ as RFK, Jr. and MAHA claim? The evidence says mostly the opposite
Picture1-14
When superbugs threaten vulnerable children: Can AI help solve antibiotic resistance?
Screenshot-2026-04-23-at-11.00.36-AM
Regulators' dilemma: Thalidomide, Metformin, and the cost of getting drug approvals wrong
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-08_39_41-PM
GLP podcast: Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food—health harming industries or life-saving innovators?
Picture1-1
Cooling the planet with balloons: Could a geoengineering gamble slow global warming?
png-pill-omega-Supp-fish-oil
Millions take omega-3 fish oil for brain health. New research suggests it may do the opposite.
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.