Schapira and colleagues [1] noted that screening with the combination of CA 125 and ultrasound prolongs life by less than a day per woman screened. Pauker [2] pointed out that such screening prolongs the lives of those found to have preclinical cancer by 11.6 years each. Nevertheless, he goes on to say, "such (screening) programs cannot be recommended as public policy" [2].

Why do they disregard an astounding 11.6-year prolongation of life and concentrate instead on the misleading less-than-1-day statistic?

A woman does not need a scientific study to tell her that a clean bill of health from an ovarian cancer screening will not prolong her life. Common sense tells her that. If she is not harboring cancer, how can a negative result from a diagnostic test be expected to have any effect whatsoever on her life expectancy? What she really wants to know is, in the event that screening does detect preclinical cancer, could her life be prolonged? Pauker's answer is an impressive yes—by more than 11 years.

Women next need to know that, for every 100 000 screened, 99 876 will test negative and 124 will test positive and require laparotomy. Of those, 110 will have negative laparotomies, whereas the remaining 14 (13.8) will have cancer and prolong their lives by 11.6 years each.

Finally, women (or their payers) need to know that the cost will be $2.5 million (charges will be higher) using Pauker's estimates, for each 100 000 women screened. This amounts to $181 000 for each woman whose life is prolonged by 11.6 years, or $15 600 per year of life saved.

The public needs this information to decide whether to spend the time, effort, and money on such screening. The public does not need the meaningless piece of statistical misinformation that a woman's life will be prolonged an average of three quarters of a day by undergoing screening.