Ovarian cancer screening gynecologists often fail to understand the consequences

Benefit of ovarian cancer screening is overestimated

According to health experts, ovarian cancer is more dangerous than breast cancer, since the mortality rate is significantly higher in the former cancer. Prevention and early detection are therefore of particular importance. But researchers say gynecologists overestimate the value of ovarian cancer screening - and underestimate their damage.

Ovarian cancer is one of the most aggressive tumors

"The ovarian cancer (ovarian carcinoma) is one of the most aggressive tumors and is the second most common malignant disease of the female genitalia," writes the German Cancer Society on its website. "The big danger with this type of tumor is that it is usually discovered very late, because for a long time initially no symptoms occur," the experts said. Early detection is therefore of particular importance. But the benefits of such investigations will be overestimated according to experts.

According to a recent study, gynecologists overestimate the benefits of ovarian cancer screening and underestimate their damage. (Image: Markus Mainka / fotolia.com)

Doctors stick to medical measures without benefit

As the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Education Research notes in a communication, evidence-based medicine requires that physicians use the best available scientific evidence available to make good treatment decisions.

But research to date shows that this is not always the case in practice. In this way, doctors are sometimes committing to medical measures that demonstrably have no use and may even be harmful.

This is also the case with early ovarian cancer screening, as shown by an online study by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development with more than 400 US gynecologists.

The results were published in the scientific journal "Scientific Reports".

Early detection is not recommended by medical societies

In recent years, two large randomized-controlled clinical trials have concluded that ovarian cancer screening does not save extra lives but can be associated with massive damage, such as unnecessary ovarian retrieval in healthy women.

According to the MPI, early detection is therefore not recommended by medical societies.

An online study by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development with 401 US gynecologists shows that just under 60 percent of doctors recommend early detection anyway.

The majority of gynecologists do not know the actual benefit or harm of early detection. Accordingly, they can not afford a comprehensive explanation of the patients.

Wrong ideas about the effectiveness

"Not only patients have misconceptions about the effectiveness of early cancer detection, but also doctors," says first author Odette Wegwarth of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development.

"A previous study suggests that one of the reasons for this is that many doctors in their training are insufficiently prepared for the correct interpretation of the statistics used for the description of benefits and claims," ​​said the scientist.

The aim of the current study was to investigate whether gynecologists despite previous recommendation by the medical societies recommend the early detection of ovarian cancer and whether this is related to their knowledge of the benefits and harms of early detection.

In addition, the researchers examined whether the gynecologists revised erroneous benefit or damage assessment, after presenting the current evidence in an easily understandable form.

Even German doctors have a lack of knowledge

According to the experts, a large proportion of gynecologists overestimated the benefits of early diagnosis and massively underestimated the damage of early diagnosis. Depending on the question, this was 45 to 97 percent of respondents.

The miscalculation was particularly pronounced in those just under 60 percent of gynecologists who routinely recommended early detection.

Presenting an evidence-based, easy-to-understand fact box led to 52 percent revising their erroneous estimates; 48 percent not.

"Our study shows that recommending early detection without benefit is associated with a lack of knowledge about the evidence," says Wegwarth.

"For physicians who are open to evidence-based medicine, easy-to-understand, well-organized risk communication formats can help. We obviously do not reach all of them with a transparent presentation. The reasons for this need to be further explored. "

The fact that the study was conducted with US physicians does not mean that the problem is limited only to the US healthcare system.

"We have a well-founded study that German doctors also have a lack of knowledge when it comes to screening-related statistics and the effectiveness of early detection," explains Wegwarth.

"A strengthening of evidence-based medicine in practice is therefore only achievable if we prepare physicians well in their training and, above all, practice-oriented on the handling of statistics," says the study author. (Ad)