A Message About Today’s News Concerning Ovarian Cancer and Angelina Jolie


I am writing to you from Orlando where the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) is having its annual meeting. I am the current president of this 10,000-member society and as most of you know I wrote the second book ever on transvaginal ultrasound and the first book on gynecological ultrasound.


Today’s news about Angelina Jolie’s decision to remove her ovaries necessitates that once again I send you, my patients, an email blast.


Some important facts; first Angelina Jolie carries the BRCA gene and that is why she had double mastectomies. In addition hers is the BRCA1 gene, which tends to cause high-grade ovarian tumors and tends to be premenopausal. The BRCA2 gene is less likely to be high grade and more likely to occur post menopausal. In addition less than 10% of ovarian cancers are related to this genetic mutation. Still, ovarian cancer tends to be a very lethal disease. In the “real world”, 82% of ovarian cancer presents as stage III or IV. The University of Kentucky ovarian cancer-screening program however found just the opposite. By annual transvaginal ultrasound screening, they picked up 82% of ovarian tumors at stage I or II, which is the exact opposite of the rest of the population. Recently a screening program in Britain, also using annual ultrasound screening, picked up ovarian cancer at an earlier stage. Still, they reported on nine women who came in less than one year after a negative ultrasound screen with a belly full of ovarian cancer—yet all nine were between 6–13 months since their negative screen. What does that tell us? If you are going to screen 12 months may be too long an interval. That is why for many years I have suggested seeing patients at six-month intervals, not for Pap tests but for vaginal sonograms. My personal motto has always been “over surveillance, under treat”

As usual if you have any concerns or questions don’t hesitate to call


I remain yours in health

Dr. Goldstein

By |Other|Comments Off on A Message About Today’s News Concerning Ovarian Cancer and Angelina Jolie

Today’s NY Times Article


I hope I am not inundating you with too many of these “Email Blasts.” However, once again, there is an article on the front page of the NY Times, which I feel mandates some commentary by me. And once again, I have gone back to the original article, which appears in the current issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) rather than just the NY Times rendition and summary of it.

The article is entitled “Diagnostic Concordance Among Pathologists Interpreting Breast Biopsy Specimens.” In the first place, you should all feel very comfortable and confident that there was almost 100% concordance for those patients who had actual breast cancer. In other words, this is a relatively straightforward diagnosis and something that is not often misinterpreted by community pathologists. The area where there was less good coordination was in precancerous lesions. I believe this is why it is so important for all pathology specimens to be interpreted by experts.

Certainly, in my area, that of gynecology, I have purposely always used the NYU Laboratory for pathology. These are not only experts but people who train pathologists to go out into the community and perform pathologic evaluations, in general. Some of you have experienced the following scenario, which happens all too often:

• A patient will bring her young daughter in who has had a markedly abnormal Pap smear done elsewhere. She has been told that she needs a LEEP procedure, which is somewhat destructive in that it removes a portion of the cervix.
• This would triple her risk of preterm birth and incompetent cervix when she does decide to have children.
• It is appropriate to do such a procedure for high-grade abnormal Pap smears.
• The first thing I do is request the slides and bring them to the head of GYN Pathology here at NYU and look at them with him over a two-headed microscope. Probably four out of five times over the years that I have done this (and it seems to happen only a couple of times a year), he will end up showing me the area that this other pathologist thought was highly abnormal and is able to downgrade this to mildly abnormal or just atypical, thus allowing the young patient who hasn’t had her children yet to avoid any surgical intervention. Most physicians do not have pathology specimens re-reviewed, especially when these are sent to large commercial labs like Quest or National Health Laboratories. This is especially important if one is going to undertake a serious surgical procedure (like a total mastectomy or a LEEP of the cervix) for a “precancerous” lesion.

The final advice is something I often give to you when I see you in person, which is that your mammography (and therefore, breast biopsies and the pathologists that then look at them) should be done by facilities that are of the highest caliber and quality

By |Other|Comments Off on Today’s NY Times Article