Rapid Review Quiz: Ovarian Cancer Screening and Prevention
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy remains the cornerstone of prevention for high-risk patients, while oral contraceptives offer a risk-reducing effect in the general population. Additionally, genetic counseling has become an essential step in identifying at-risk individuals who may benefit from tailored interventions.
How much do you know about recent developments in ovarian cancer screening and prevention? Test your knowledge with this updated review.
Despite significant research efforts, no screening strategy has yet demonstrated a mortality benefit in average-risk female patients. As noted in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, landmark clinical trials — including the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian) cancer screening trial — failed to show a survival benefit from annual CA-125 testing or transvaginal ultrasound alone or in combination. The risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) — which evaluates CA-125 trends over time — did improve early-stage detection rates but did not ultimately reduce mortality. As a result, current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and other expert bodies, including the NCCN, recommend against routine screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk females. Instead, attention has shifted toward identifying and managing high-risk individuals through genetic counseling and risk-reducing strategies. Routine screening in the general population is considered ineffective and may result in harms from false-positive tests and unnecessary surgical interventions.
Learn more about the workup for ovarian cancer.
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) remains the most effective strategy for preventing ovarian and fallopian tube cancer in individuals with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Guidelines recommend RRSO typically between ages 35 and 45, depending on the specific mutation and family history. This surgery significantly lowers the risk of high-grade serous carcinoma, the most common and aggressive subtype. Studies have shown that RRSO can reduce ovarian cancer risk significantly also confer a survival benefit, particularly in BRCA1 carriers. While oral contraceptives also reduce risk, they do not offer the same degree of protection as surgical removal of at-risk tissue. Annual pelvic exams and imaging have not demonstrated efficacy in early detection or mortality reduction in this population. Patients considering RRSO should be counseled about surgical menopause and may require hormone therapy depending on age and symptom burden. The procedure is essential in the preventive care of high-risk individuals.
Learn more more about ovarian cancer deterrence and prevention.
Emerging evidence over the past decade suggests that the fallopian tube epithelium — not the ovary — is the origin of many high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. As a result, the practice of opportunistic salpingectomy — removing the fallopian tubes during hysterectomy or tubal sterilization procedures — has gained traction as a preventive strategy, even in females at average risk. Major gynecologic societies now endorse this practice as a safe and effective risk-reducing option during pelvic surgery for benign indications. The rationale is grounded in the theory of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma as a precursor lesion to high-grade serous cancer. Unlike endometrial cancer, whose origin lies in the uterine lining, salpingectomy directly targets the tissue where most serous carcinomas are thought to begin.
Learn more about ovarian cancer and surgical considerations.
Current guidelines recommend genetic counseling and consideration of BRCA and multigene panel testing in females with a personal or strong family history of breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Identifying carriers of pathogenic variants enables implementation of life-saving risk-reducing strategies, including salpingo-oophorectomy or enhanced surveillance. Importantly, such testing is also offered to individuals with male relatives who have had breast cancer, early-onset cancers, or known mutations in cancer susceptibility genes. Genetic testing should ideally be preceded by counseling to interpret results accurately and discuss implications for family members. Patients with unrelated gynecologic conditions like endometriosis or abnormal uterine bleeding, and those without relevant family history, are not routinely offered genetic testing unless other risk factors emerge. Early identification of mutation carriers is essential for tailored management, timely preventive interventions, and cascade testing of at-risk relatives.
Learn more about risk assessment and genetic counseling in ovarian cancer.
Multiple large observational studies and meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated a protective effect of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) against ovarian cancer. The reduction in risk is observed with long-term use, typically over 5 years, and persists for decades after discontinuation. The proposed mechanism involves suppression of ovulation, thereby reducing the repetitive trauma and repair cycles to the ovarian epithelium, which may underlie carcinogenesis. The protective effect spans multiple histologic subtypes, including high-grade serous, endometrioid, and clear cell carcinomas. While other agents such as NSAIDs have been evaluated, their protective role is less well established and not considered standard for chemoprevention. Aromatase inhibitors and bisphosphonates are not used for ovarian cancer prevention. As with any medication, the decision to use oral contraceptives must consider individual risk profiles, including thromboembolic and cardiovascular risks, and be guided by patient preferences and shared decision-making.
Learn more about ovarian cancer and the impact of oral contraceptives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
41 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Overcoming Body Insecurity: My Breast Confidence Story
My anxiety was growing. I needed to give him my rehearsed speech. I had thought about giving it sooner, like on our first date, but that seemed too early, or afterwards, in a text message before our second date. Now, I felt I had no choice but to tell him mid-kiss, before he reached for my breasts. 'I had a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery because I have a genetic mutation that causes breast cancer and ovarian cancer,' I told him. I assured him I didn't have cancer. I mentioned that Angelina Jolie didn't have cancer either, but had done the same thing. I had the surgery years before Jolie, but most people are familiar with her experience. I was afraid that my speech about dying and ugly boobs would be a buzzkill, but I needed to warn him so he wouldn't be surprised at what he saw or touched. I felt the familiar panic I always had when I gave my speech. I worried that the man I was starting to like would be disappointed or repulsed. My armpits were sweaty and I hoped that my deodorant was working. 'Don't worry, I've seen women with implants before,' he said. 'Not my kind of implants,' I replied. In the direct, matter-of-fact way that I'm now used to, he said, 'Let's get this over with,' and gently lifted my T-shirt over my head. I helped him unhook my bra. He looked at my boobs quickly, said they're gorgeous, and though I didn't believe him, we continued to kiss. Since then, I've discussed my insecurity about my breasts with David many times. I am not the same person who hid under a T-shirt for so long and never told her ex-husband how afraid she was that he wouldn't desire or love her after a double mastectomy. I wasted years after the surgery hating and hiding my breasts, but I don't blame myself. I grew up in a looks-obsessed culture that made me think I had to look like Angelina Jolie. I'm happy that Jolie told the world she has the BRCA gene mutation and had prophylactic surgery, because she may have saved some lives. Maybe her reconstruction looks better than mine, and maybe she wasn't afraid to take her shirt off afterwards. I was, because our culture makes women feel like they have to look perfect. Now, I see my breasts as just another imperfection, like the wrinkles on my knees or the age spots on my forearms, and they don't make me more or less lovable. My reconstructed breasts no longer feel like a secret I have to hide. David has normalized my chest for me because he touches me frequently and without hesitation. When he touches my breasts and tells me he loves them, I have started to believe him. Not because I think my boobs are beautiful or even just OK, but because they're part of me. I showed David the real me by taking my shirt off, but I learned that discussing my insecurities was what really mattered. Now, when David and I spoon and he reaches his arm over my back and rests his hand on one of my breasts, I relax into his touch and fall asleep. Margery Berger is the mother of two grown children and lives in Miami with her two poorly behaved dogs and David. She has written for Home Miami Magazine, Lip Service, Next Tribe and for the Writing Class Radio podcast.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is There Really About to Be a Breast Cancer Vaccine?
For decades, the idea of a vaccine that could prevent breast cancer has felt more like science fiction than science. But recently, headlines touting 'breakthroughs' and 'game-changers' have sparked a new wave of hope and some skepticism. Could we really be on the cusp of immunizing against one of the most common and deadly cancers affecting women worldwide? Behind the buzz are early-stage clinical trials, promising preliminary results and a growing understanding of how the immune system can be trained to recognize and attack cancer cells. As researchers push forward, the science behind these potential vaccines—and what they might mean for the future of cancer prevention—is becoming increasingly compelling. More from Flow Space New Nimbus & Stratus COVID Variants Are Spreading-Here's Why Midlife Women Should Be Concerned How a Breast Cancer Vaccine Could Work and What Makes It Different A breast cancer vaccine is a type of immunotherapy designed to prevent, treat or reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence by training the body's immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. There are two main types under development. Preventive (Prophylactic) Vaccines:These are meant to stop cancer before it starts—similar to how traditional vaccines prevent infectious diseases like measles or HPV. For breast cancer, preventive vaccines are still experimental and are generally being tested on people who are considered high risk (like those with BRCA mutations or a strong family history). Therapeutic Vaccines:These are designed for people who already have breast cancer or have completed treatment but are at risk of recurrence. The goal is to boost the immune response against cancer-specific markers (like HER2 or mammaglobin-A), so the body can find and destroy any remaining cancer cells. 'Unlike traditional vaccines for infectious diseases (such as flu or COVID-19), which prevent infections caused by external pathogens, breast cancer vaccines target abnormal cellular changes to either prevent cancer or treat it by reducing recurrence,' Dr. Marie Ward, regional director of breast surgery at NYC Health + Hospitals's Jacobi Medical Center, tells Flow Space. By exposing the immune system to these antigens, the vaccine helps it 'learn' what cancer cells look like, so it can mount a stronger, more targeted attack. Where Does the Research Stand? While no breast cancer vaccine is currently approved for widespread use, several promising vaccine candidates are in clinical trials, targeting different approaches to breast cancer, including primary prevention and recurrence prevention. As of mid-2025, Ward says there are at least 15 breast cancer vaccine clinical trials in various stages in the U.S., some in phase II and III. She says some notable examples include: NeuVax (targets Her2): advanced trials mRNA vaccines (e.g., MUC1-based) show promising early results in disease-free survival (DFS) and reduction of recurrence Alpha-lactalbumin vaccines for triple-negative breast cancer One of the most closely watched efforts is being led by the Cleveland Clinic, which launched its phase I trial of a preventive breast cancer vaccine in 2021. 'This vaccine targets α-lactalbumin—a protein normally produced only during lactation but abnormally expressed in many triple-negative breast cancers—a particularly aggressive and hard-to-treat subtype,' Dr. Brooke Davis, breast medical oncologist at Oncology Specialists of Charlotte in North Carolina, tells Flow Space. The trial is testing the vaccine in women who are currently cancer-free but considered high-risk due to genetic mutations (like BRCA1/2) or family history. The current focus is on evaluating safety, immune response and tolerability. If early results are promising, the study will expand to larger groups and later-phase trials to assess long-term protection Meanwhile, therapeutic vaccines are also advancing. These vaccines don't aim to prevent the disease from occurring, but rather to help the immune system better identify and destroy cancer cells, especially those that may linger after treatment and cause recurrence. For instance, researchers are developing HER2-targeted vaccines, which are designed to activate immune cells against breast cancers that overexpress the HER2 protein. 'These are currently being studied in combination with other treatments, such as checkpoint inhibitors, in hopes of amplifying their effectiveness,' adds Davis. Additionally, mRNA vaccine technology is being adapted for breast cancer applications. Companies like BioNTech and Moderna, which were instrumental in developing COVID-19 vaccines, are now exploring whether personalized mRNA vaccines can teach the immune system to target tumor-specific neoantigens—essentially custom-building a vaccine unique to each patient's cancer. Early results across multiple trials have shown that these vaccines are capable of producing measurable immune responses and appear to be safe, with relatively mild side effects. However, most studies are still in phase I or phase II, meaning it's too soon to know whether they will lead to significant reductions in cancer risk or recurrence. That said, both interest and investment in this space are growing rapidly. The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Defense are funding numerous breast cancer vaccine studies, reflecting growing institutional confidence in the field. Epidemiologist Dr. Scarlett Lin Gomez, co-leader of the Cancer Control Program at University of Central South Florida who specializes in studying breast cancer rates among Asian-American women is currently conducting the CRANE study. Its goal is to understand the risk factors underlying the high and increasing rates of breast cancer in Asian American females. 'But in a more general sense, raising awareness among the medical community about the severity of breast cancer and its rising cases within minority groups only sheds light on how much a vaccine would be a game changer,' she notes. However, researchers caution that a universal breast cancer vaccine—one that could be given to the general population, much like the HPV vaccine—is likely still many years away, if it proves possible at all. 'The ideal future model combines both: a standard vaccine base with individualized components tailored to a patient's unique tumor biology,' explains Ward. What's Next? Every breast cancer vaccine trial underway today is doing more than just testing a single intervention; it's helping to define the future of cancer prevention and treatment. While we're still years away from routine, widespread vaccination against breast cancer, researchers are gathering critical insights that are shaping the next generation of cancer vaccines. Ward says one of the major milestones the field is working toward is the successful demonstration of reduced recurrence or prevention rates in large, randomized phase III trials, which could lead to regulatory approval, particularly for high-risk populations. But reaching that point, she emphasizes, requires a more sophisticated approach than a vaccine alone. 'One of our key learnings is that vaccines are far more effective when combined with other forms of immunotherapy, such as checkpoint inhibitors,' Ward explains. 'Cancer is expert at evading immune recognition. You need to unmask it—and that often takes multiple tools working in tandem.' Another essential insight has come from understanding which antigens best trigger a protective immune response. 'We're learning to distinguish between shared antigens, which are common across many tumors, and personalized neoantigens, which are unique to each patient's cancer,' says Ward. 'Both have potential, but personalizing the immune response could offer stronger, longer-lasting protection.' Technological innovation is playing a major role in shaping these next-generation vaccines, as well, adds Davis. She says that with mRNA platforms and machine learning, scientists are able to design and adapt vaccines more rapidly than ever before, and these tools allow us to evolve the vaccine alongside the tumor, which is critical because cancer isn't static, it changes. At the same time, researchers are gaining a better understanding of why some vaccines underperform. One of the most promising avenues for current vaccines is minimal residual disease settings—after the primary tumor has been removed or treated, but before the cancer has a chance to come back. In these scenarios, the tumor burden is low, and the immune system has a better shot at clearing out any remaining cells. Ultimately, experts agree that breast cancer vaccines will more than likely be part of a larger therapeutic strategy rather than a standalone solution. 'We're likely to see vaccines used alongside existing therapies—chemotherapy, targeted drugs and immunotherapy—for a synergistic benefit,' Ward says. 'It's about boosting the immune system in a smarter, more targeted way. But the lessons we're learning now are invaluable. They're helping us build smarter, safer and more effective vaccines and bringing us closer to a future where cancer prevention is proactive, not reactive.' Solve the daily Crossword
Medscape
3 days ago
- Medscape
Deaths From Prostate Cancer vs Other Causes: Long-Term Data
Men treated for nonmetastatic prostate cancer under current guidelines are up to 6 times less likely to die from their cancer than from other causes, according to data from a Swedish cancer registry. The study estimated long-term outcomes over up to 30 years in men who received treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer that was in line with current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Overall, nearly 90% of men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease were likely to survive their cancer and die from other causes over their life expectancy. While men with high-risk disease had higher death rates from prostate cancer, they were still at least twice as likely to die from other causes. 'Our data support adherence to guideline recommendations for treatment of prostate cancer,' lead author Pietro Scilipoti, MD, of Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden, and IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, said in a news release. 'If guideline-recommended treatment is used,' Scilipoti added, 'most people with prostate cancer will live for many years after diagnosis. That includes active surveillance as an excellent treatment strategy for appropriately selected people.' Kyrollis Attalla, MD, a urologic oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, emphasized the findings among low-risk patients, most of whom underwent active surveillance. The data offer a 'strong and welcome addition to the existing and growing body of evidence demonstrating the superior clinical outcomes among men with low-risk prostate cancer managed with data-driven active surveillance protocols,' Attalla, who wasn't involved in the study, told Medscape Medical News . The analysis was published online earlier this month in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Addressing a Data Gap Men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer have a long disease trajectory, and it's well known that the competing risk for death from other causes is high. However, there are only limited data on long-term outcomes for men treated for prostate cancer according to current guideline recommendations. To investigate, Scilipoti and colleagues used Swedish registry data to identify 62,839 men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2000 and 2020. At diagnosis, their median age was 67 years and median life expectancy was 18 years. All had a defined risk category and received primary treatment consistent with current NCCN guidelines (v4.2023): Most often that meant radical prostatectomy (42%), radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy (22%), or active surveillance (20%). Among the 15,531 men with low-risk disease, 71% underwent active surveillance. The researchers simulated patients' risk of dying from prostate cancer or other causes at 15 and 30 years, according to risk category and life expectancy at diagnosis. For men with low-risk prostate cancer, the simulated 15-year prostate cancer mortality rate was 5.5%, whereas mortality from other causes was 37%. Prostate cancer mortality was highest among men with very high-risk disease, at 22%, but the rate of death from competing causes was still higher (36%). At 30 years, the simulated estimate for prostate cancer mortality was 12% among low-risk men, whereas the mortality rate from other causes was 77%. Estimates for men with favorable intermediate-risk cancer were almost identical. Even for men with higher-risk disease, the likelihood of dying from causes other than prostate cancer was two to three times higher: At 30-years, researchers estimated a 20% mortality rate from prostate cancer vs 67% from other causes among men with high-risk disease, and 30% vs 63% among men with very high-risk disease. Within each risk category, deaths due to prostate cancer and other causes varied by life expectancy. For example, when men with low-risk disease had a life expectancy of over 15 years, their estimated 15-year prostate cancer mortality was just 2.5%. That rose to 10% among low-risk men with a life expectancy of < 10 years. Mortality from other causes was higher and ranged from 20% to 81%, respectively, in men with a life expectancy of > 15 years and < 10 years. 'This study offers a big sigh of relief for many men facing a prostate cancer diagnosis,' Ahmad Shabsigh, MD, with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, and member of the NCCN guidelines panel for prostate cancer, said in the news release. 'What's truly striking is that for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, many of whom were on active surveillance, the 30-year mortality risk from the cancer itself was only about 11%,' said Shabsigh, who was not involved in the research. 'It really underscores the power of evidence-based treatment plans and the importance of focusing on a person's overall health, not just their cancer.' Attala noted that while the overtreatment of prostate cancer has long been an issue, active surveillance has more than doubled over the last decade in the US. 'As our understanding of tumor biology and our ability to risk-stratify men with prostate cancer improved, the rates of offering and implementation of active surveillance for appropriate candidates were seen to increase in tandem,' Attala said. Still, he added, rates of active surveillance vary widely across practices and individual providers. The new data 'should serve to further attest to the long-term safety of active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer,' Attala said. He cautioned, however, that patient safety depends on adherence to the quality protocol detailed in the guidelines — and that does not always happen in current practice. For example, Attala pointed out that confirmatory testing is recommended following a diagnosis of low-risk disease, to facilitate early identification of men who may be at higher risk for future grade reclassification or progression. However, recent data suggest that only a little over half of urologists are offering confirmatory testing following the initial biopsy. 'The rates of grade reclassification with confirmatory testing are not insignificant — upwards of 25% in some studies,' Attala pointed out. 'Altogether, this study and others highlight that optimal outcomes on active surveillance are derived from optimal guideline-driven practices.'
