The story does not describe the cost of CA-125. The story adequately quantifies the survival benefit with CA-125 compared to no testing. The story adequately describes the major harm of CA-125 testing, which is that it could lead to unnecessary treatment in women who would not benefit from it. The story does a good job of describing the current study and placing the results in context with current clinical thinking. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of Ovarian Cancer. The story quotes several experts who are not involved in the story, providing valuable perspective on the results. Clearly no testing is the alternative to CA-125. The story could have also mentioned regular imaging tests as a way to monitor for recurrent cancer. Clearly CA-125 is available. Clearly CA-125 testing for recurrent Ovarian Cancer is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Doubts on Ovarian Cancer Relapse Test