I recently wrote about biochemist Pat Brown's study of the natural history of serous ovarian cancer. He showed new, much more sensitive diagnostic tests are needed to have any hope of lowering the disease's mortality rate.
Melinda Beck of the Wall Street Journal picked up the thread and incorporated Brown's research into a far-ranging story about ovarian cancer detection. She includes findings from another just-published study that identifies a relatively common genetic variation that slightly raises a woman's risk of developing the disease. (It appears that researchers are now thinking that inheriting several of these common variations--each of which alone slightly raise the risk of developing the disease--together substantially raises a woman's risk.) She also discusses how a high-rate of false positive findings limit the usefulness of currently available tests like the CA125 blood test and transvaginal sonogram. And of course she uses Brown's compelling picture--how could she not? Check it out.
Previously: Ovarian cancer tests flawed
