Improving ovarian cancer outcomes will require a stronger commitment to transparency across the research and care landscape, along with a clearer focus on reducing avoidable delays. Meaningful progress depends on faster, more open communication, better-supported research, and guidance that helps women receive timely answers and care without being left to navigate the system alone.
Emily Campbell emerged not only as a survivor of borderline serous ovarian cancer but as one of the most vocal advocates for rebuilding the system that failed her and so many others. Her experience navigating weeks of dismissal and delayed answers reshaped her understanding of what women face. “Women shouldn’t be waiting for the care they deserve,” she says, reflecting on how closely timing, communication, and outcomes are intertwined. Through Not These Ovaries, she has become a leading voice urging the field to adopt the transparency and urgency it has long lacked.
A Startup Mindset Meets a Stagnant Medical System
Campbell spent her career inside early stage companies and venture capital firms, where speed, clarity, and constant stakeholder communication are baseline expectations. “Rapid growth is something that has been my homeostasis for a work environment,” she says. In venture-backed environments, transparency isn’t optional. Teams share information swiftly, iterate constantly, and move with intensity because everyone understands what is at stake.
That mindset stood in stark contrast to what she encountered when she entered the healthcare system as a patient. Even with weeks of escalating symptoms, she struggled to get clear answers. She was repeatedly dismissed, instructed to wait, and forced to chase her own test results. At one point she hand-delivered specimens herself to secure a second opinion. “Living through ovarian cancer surgery and doctor appointments and understanding how urgent this need is on a personal level has helped me push through and stay motivated,” she says.
The Cost of Stagnation for Women
Ovarian cancer remains the deadliest gynecologic cancer, and its outcomes have barely budged in decades. It’s a consequence of deep systemic gaps. “The healthcare system just doesn’t cater to women and it especially doesn’t cater to older women,” she says. The average age of diagnosis is 65. Campbell notes that symptoms often resemble benign conditions and are easily overlooked. Patients are sent home without answers while the disease continues to progress.
She also points to a cultural silence around women’s health that has persisted for generations. “There hasn’t been enough research around women’s health, women’s cancers, and because of that there’s so little that’s still understood.” While breast cancer eventually broke through years of limited attention to become a major public health priority, ovarian cancer did not receive the same visibility. “Survival rates of breast cancer are so much higher than they were 30 or 40 years ago,” she says. “But 20 years ago we were still at the same survival rates with ovarian cancer.”
Today, she sees signs of momentum. Discussions about menopause, hormonal health, and gynecologic conditions are more visible than ever across social platforms. Women are naming their experiences, asking harder questions, and expecting answers. Campbell believes this cultural shift creates a pivotal opening for change, but one that requires deliberate action to sustain.
Three Levers That Could Change the Trajectory
Campbell is candid about the shifts that could meaningfully speed progress in ovarian cancer care, starting with funding. “We literally just need more money,” she says. Ovarian cancer research funding lags dramatically behind other cancers. Early research depends heavily on private donors who can provide the initial $50,000 to several million dollars needed to test hypotheses before projects can qualify for larger government or industry support. “Our government is setting us back,” says Campbell, referencing recent cuts to federal health research budgets. Without restoring or replacing those funds, progress could regress by decades.
Regulatory support is the second lever. Cuts to healthcare research funding can leave promising areas of inquiry stalled before they ever reach clinical trials. Stronger protections for women’s health research, clearer pathways to specialist referrals, and improved mandates around diagnostic standards could have meaningful impact. Awareness gaps remain staggering, which is why communication is a crucial third lever in shifting the current trajectory. Primary care physicians often miss early warning signs, and public conversations play a significant role in closing that gap. “If you ask the average woman what the symptoms are for ovarian cancer, they won’t know,” she says. “We need to talk about this more until it’s fully understood.”
The Future Will Be Faster if Technology Is Used Responsibly
Through Not These Ovaries, she is turning those lessons into a movement defined by speed, clarity, and shared purpose. Emerging tools have the potential to support that momentum, particularly when they help researchers and clinicians work through information more efficiently. Campbell believes technology can play a meaningful role in easing bottlenecks in both research and diagnosis, but only when introduced with care and transparency.
“We’re right at this crux with AI becoming smarter and we don’t yet know its full potential,” she says. For her, the priority is ensuring any innovation supports clinicians rather than replaces critical judgment and that safeguards are in place before widespread adoption. “Transparency allows for collaboration, which we need more of,” she says. Urgency remains just as central. “Women shouldn’t be waiting for new developments and innovations in treatment and care.”
Readers can follow Emily Campbell’s work to revolutionize Ovarian Cancer care on LinkedIn or learn more on Not These Ovaries’ website.
