I think that the people who make the decisions regarding resources are allocating the money to the places it will do the greatest good for the most people. A market economy tends to shake out that way, where as a social medicine program is often going to be influenced by agendas and political arguments.
While I agree that it is tragic when young women like Gilda Radner succumb to ovarian cancer, I recognize that majority of women who develop ovarian cancer in middle age or before are BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 positive, meaning they carry the gene that causes breast and ovarian cancer. And, fortunately, there is a test for the gene mutations that cause these types of cancer. The terrible thing about this disease, though, and the reason many women choose not to have the genetic testing, is that the treatment is so terrible -- removal of the ovaries without hormone replacement therapy resulting in premature menopause, infertility, pain during intercourse, etc. It's a lot to ask of a 30 year old woman to face such things.
Personally, I think the money allocated to ovarian cancer would be better spent finding treatments for BRCA+ women that would make it possible for them to live a normal life, rather than a screening test. I know many pathology labs are lobbying hard for those dollars, but it's just not the way to go. I'd rather see us support real laws that would protect people from having genetic testing results used to discriminate against them in the arenas of employment and insurance. I'd rather see the money spent developing residency and fellowship programs to train surgeons to do skin-sparing mastectomies and innovative reconstruction techniques such as DIEP and GAP, to study hormone replacement drugs that will preserve a woman's femininity without feeding the cancers, and on post-oophrectomy egg freezing that would preserve fertility.
When ovarian cancer strikes young women, it is usually related to BRCA. 40% of women with a mutation will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime. 80% of them will develop breast cancer. The American Society of Breast Surgeons states that BRCA mutations are rare in the general population, occurring in 1 in 400-800 individuals, but high risk populations exist and include persons with:
1. early onset breast cancer (diagnosed before age 50)
2. two primary breast cancers, either bilateral or ipsilateral
3. a family history of early onset breast cancer
4. male breast cancer
5. a personal or family history of ovarian cancer (particularly non-mucinous types)
6. Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish heritage
7. a previously identified BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in the family
If Gilda Radner had looked at this list, she would have realized that she was at high risk of ovarian cancer. Would she have chosen to have a bilateral mastectomy and oophrectomy? I doubt it...she was young and in love with her husband and wanted children. Would she have chosen a course of treatment that could lead to immediate infertility and her bowel perforating through her vaginal wall 6 months later? (Yes, that happens.) I don't think so.
Minnie you passed 100 Posts!!! Keep on, keepin' on, sista!
The lady doc on the Today show this am said it is all because of economics. 
The research money is going elsewhere. Early screening could prevent so many deaths from this disease. It's usually diagnosed in later stages, which accounts for 15,000 deaths out of 23,000 cases being diagnosed in the US anually.
