CHICAGO — Not everyone is embracing the new term “polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome” (PMOS) as a replacement for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), despite broad agreement that the long-standing name needed to change.

In May 2026, a global consortium published a consensus paper in The Lancet announcing the new name and outlining the rationale and process behind its selection. The effort was led by experts from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia; the UK patient advocacy group Verity; and the international Androgen Excess & PCOS Society. The initiative has been endorsed by 56 professional societies and patient associations and was funded by the Australian Centre of Research Excellence.

The consortium argued that PCOS, which affects an estimated 1 in 8 women globally, is an inaccurate term that overemphasizes ovarian cysts while obscuring the disorder’s broader endocrine and metabolic features. The transition to PMOS is anticipated to occur over the next 3 years and will be supported by a multifaceted implementation strategy.

At ENDO 2026: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting, a June 13 session titled From PCOS to PMOS: Rationale and Clinical Implications of a New Nomenclature featured consortium members who reviewed the history of the condition’s name and consensus process behind the new terminology. Several speakers offered differing perspectives on the change.

Only one panelist, Andrea E. Dunaif, MD, the Lillian and Henry M. Stratton Professor of Molecular Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, voiced direct objections to the new name. However, several audience members also raised concerns about both the terminology itself and what they viewed as a rushed rollout that lacked adequate representation from all relevant specialties.

One Point of Agreement: PCOS Needed a New Name

Consensus co-author Anuja Dokras, MD, PhD, director of the PMOS Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, reviewed the flawed history of the condition’s name, from the 1935 misidentification of arrested follicular development as pathologic ovarian “cysts” to the move toward a single-organ label that obscured the disorder’s endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, psychological, and dermatologic manifestations.

“The inaccurate name complicates policy, funding, research, guidelines, education, care, and health outcomes,” Dokras said, noting that more than 70% of the estimated 170 million affected women globally remain undiagnosed.

An earlier effort to change the name, initiated during a 2012 National Institutes of Health (NIH) workshop, failed because of a lack of global leadership, patient involvement, consensus on a replacement term, and an implementation strategy, she explained.

Support for a name change grew over subsequent years, with surveys of more than 22,000 respondents showing support from 86% of patients and 76% of healthcare professionals.

The consortium identified guiding principles for the new name, including scientific accuracy, improved patient outcomes, stigma avoidance, clarity, cultural appropriateness, and implementation feasibility. “Polyendocrine” was chosen partly to preserve the familiar “P” from PCOS, while “metabolic” reflects associations with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hyperlipidemia, and related disorders. “Ovarian” was retained to acknowledge endocrine and reproductive disturbances.

“None of this was straightforward,” Dokras said, noting that each component of the new name underwent extensive discussion among stakeholders.

Critics Question the Science and Process

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Dunaif said the new name overlooks evidence that the condition affects men and fails to reflect growing recognition of biologically distinct subtypes.

“Retaining ‘ovarian’ will continue to ghettoize the disorder, and failing to acknowledge that men are affected is a missed opportunity to have it recognized as a major metabolic condition across sexes,” she said.

Dunaif, who represented the Endocrine Society in the consortium, also criticized the process used to develop and announce the name change.

“When they say there was consensus by all these groups, there was at best consensus that a new name was needed,” she said. “The name, once it was determined, was embargoed. There was no discussion of it among scientific organizations.”

Responding to those criticisms, consortium co-author and session co-moderator Melanie G. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology and pediatrics and director of the multidisciplinary PCOS Clinic at the University of Colorado Anschutz in Aurora, Colorado, said that patients were always front and center when considering this change.

“This was driven by patients, and especially regarding adolescents, where we’re really concerned about their metabolic status and their endometrium, not their ovary,” Cree told Medscape Medical News.

She argued that the new terminology could improve attention to metabolic screening and increase eligibility for treatment options like GLP-1 receptor agonists.

“Is the name perfect? Absolutely not. But there has actually been patient harm because of the misnomer of the old name,” she said. “Is it a necessary step forward to improve patient care? Yes.”

Audience Members Raise Additional Concerns

Dunaif began her presentation with a Shakespearean flourish.

“Friends, colleagues, endocrinologists, I come to bury PMOS, not to praise it,” she said. “It was said here that science must drive the name, and at this juncture, it’s not.”

She argued that evidence for a male phenotype has existed since the late 1990s and that studies documenting reproductive and hormonal abnormalities among male relatives of affected women were not adequately considered.

“None of this evidence was presented to participants or addressed in the surveys,” Dunaif said.

She also cited research demonstrating distinct metabolic and reductive subtypes of PCOS with differing genetic architectures and long-term outcomes, noting that advances in genome-wide association studies occurring since 2011 were not considered by the consortium.

During the discussion period, several audience members echoed those concerns.

David A. Ehrmann, MD, professor emeritus of medicine and former director of the Center for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome at the University of Chicago Medicine in Chicago, said, “I don’t think this name represents the disorder in a proper way, and I don’t think it represents the opinion of most people. I don’t think we should include the words ‘poly’ or ‘ovarian’ in any form. What does ‘polyendocrine’ mean?”

Ellen W. Seely, MD, director of clinical research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, questioned whether the effort devoted to renaming might have been better directed toward understanding disease biology, prompting applause from some in attendance.

“The name is not going to be reflective of the disease until we understand the disease or syndrome,” Seely said.

A reproductive endocrinologist from China reported that more than half of the senior specialists surveyed there opposed the name change and noted that PMOS does not translate easily into Chinese. For now, she said, Chinese guidelines will continue to use PCOS clinically while introducing PMOS as a proposed academic term. Other audience members cited similar translation challenges in languages including Spanish and Greek, while one physician noted that no African representatives participated in the “global” consensus effort.

Implementation Moves Forward Despite Pushback

Despite the concerns, implementation of the PMOS terminology is moving forward.

Cree outlined an eight-stage implementation strategy. Completed steps include publication of supporting papers in Nature Metabolism, Nature Medicine, The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, and The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women’s Health; development of educational resources from many of the 56 participating societies; and a social media campaign that reached more than 75 million people.

Future steps include incorporation of PMOS terminology into electronic health records, adoption by major medical journals, engagement with the World Health Organization on diagnostic coding, education at international conferences, and inclusion in the 2028 international management guidelines.

Following the session, Dunaif said it was apparent that there was wide-ranging opposition to the new terminology.

“It was clear that there were objections from individuals across multiple regions,” she said. “The rollout has been highly coordinated, but the flaws in both the underlying science and the process are compelling. We will organize a formal response.”

Although the steering committee is unlikely to reconsider the name, Dunaif said that “convening an objective review of the current science by relevant experts would serve the field and the patients.”

During the panel, Ricardo Azziz, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an expert in androgen-related disorders, offered a broader perspective on the challenges of changing disease nomenclature.

He noted that medical community is only beginning to embrace “metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease” in place of “nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” a change formally introduced 2 years ago.

“If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science,” Azziz said. “Consensus is a political process, an opinion process, and we have to recognize that this process is political, not scientific.”

Still, he added, “the name PMOS, as has been mentioned, is somewhat inaccurate. But it is better than the name we had before.”

Dunaif reported no relevant disclosures. Cree reported having consulting relationships with Neurocrine Biosciences, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Roche; having received research supplies from Abbott; and receiving funding from the NIH. Dokras reported serving as an executive director of the Androgen Excess & PCOS Society; consulting for Ferring, May Health, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and receiving funding from the NIH, PCORI, IBX, and Ferring. Azziz reported being the chief scientific officer of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation.

Miriam E. Tucker is a freelance journalist based in the Washington, DC, area. She is a regular contributor to Medscape, with other work appearing in The Washington Post, NPR’s Shots blog, and diaTribe. She is on X @MiriamETucker and BlueSky @miriametucker.bsky.social.