L Elit1, M J Esplen, K Butler, S Narod. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. Laurie.Elit@hrcc.on.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate a woman's satisfaction with the decision to have a prophylactic oophorectomy for family history of ovarian cancer. 2) To explore the potential costs related to surgery such a menopausal symptoms and satisfaction with sexual functioning. METHODS: Women who had undergone a prophylactic oophorectomy for a family history of ovarian cancer in Ontario were invited to participate. Forty women returned a package of questionnaires addressing demographic information, family history, decisional conflict, risk comprehension, menopause-specific quality of life, satisfaction with sexual function, and other psychosocial questionnaires. RESULTS: The mean age of respondents was 54.8 years. Perceived risk for developing ovarian cancer decreased significantly after surgery (p = 0.0001). Overall quality of life on the SF-36 Health Survey demonstrated a level consistent with emotional and physical wellbeing in the general population. The Menopause-Specific Quality of Life scores were reduced compared to women of similar age on all parameters: vasomotor symptoms, psychosocial support, physical status and sexual quality of life. Satisfaction with sexual functioning was moderately to extremely compromised in 42.1%-53.7% of women. CONCLUSION: While this study shows that women who choose to have prophylactic oophorectomy for a family history of ovarian cancer have a good overall quality of life and significant decrease in risk perception as a result of surgery, they experience menopausal symptoms and compromised sexual functioning.
OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate a woman's satisfaction with the decision to have a prophylactic oophorectomy for family history of ovarian cancer. 2) To explore the potential costs related to surgery such a menopausal symptoms and satisfaction with sexual functioning. METHODS:Women who had undergone a prophylactic oophorectomy for a family history of ovarian cancer in Ontario were invited to participate. Forty women returned a package of questionnaires addressing demographic information, family history, decisional conflict, risk comprehension, menopause-specific quality of life, satisfaction with sexual function, and other psychosocial questionnaires. RESULTS: The mean age of respondents was 54.8 years. Perceived risk for developing ovarian cancer decreased significantly after surgery (p = 0.0001). Overall quality of life on the SF-36 Health Survey demonstrated a level consistent with emotional and physical wellbeing in the general population. The Menopause-Specific Quality of Life scores were reduced compared to women of similar age on all parameters: vasomotor symptoms, psychosocial support, physical status and sexual quality of life. Satisfaction with sexual functioning was moderately to extremely compromised in 42.1%-53.7% of women. CONCLUSION: While this study shows that women who choose to have prophylactic oophorectomy for a family history of ovarian cancer have a good overall quality of life and significant decrease in risk perception as a result of surgery, they experience menopausal symptoms and compromised sexual functioning.
Authors: M Watson; V Duvivier; M Wade Walsh; S Ashley; J Davidson; M Papaikonomou; V Murday; N Sacks; R Eeles Journal: J Med Genet Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: G Erlick Robinson; B P Rosen; L N Bradley; W G Rockert; M L Carr; D E Cole; K J Murphy Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: K Brain; J Gray; P Norman; E France; C Anglim; G Barton; E Parsons; A Clarke; H Sweetland; M Tischkowitz; J Myring; K Stansfield; D Webster; K Gower-Thomas; R Daoud; C Gateley; I Monypenny; H Singhal; L Branston; J Sampson; E Roberts; R Newcombe; D Cohen; C Rogers; R Mansel; P Harper Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-08-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: T R Rebbeck; A M Levin; A Eisen; C Snyder; P Watson; L Cannon-Albright; C Isaacs; O Olopade; J E Garber; A K Godwin; M B Daly; S A Narod; S L Neuhausen; H T Lynch; B L Weber Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J R Hilditch; J Lewis; A Peter; B van Maris; A Ross; E Franssen; G H Guyatt; P G Norton; E Dunn Journal: Maturitas Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Shannon N Westin; Charlotte C Sun; Karen H Lu; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pamela T Soliman; Robin A Lacour; Kristin G Johnson; Molly S Daniels; Banu K Arun; Susan K Peterson; Diane C Bodurka Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-12-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Julie O Culver; Deborah J MacDonald; Andrea A Thornton; Sharon R Sand; Marcia Grant; Deborah J Bowen; Harry Burke; Nellie Garcia; Kelly A Metcalfe; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jessica L Chan; Suneeta Senapati; Lauren N C Johnson; Laura DiGiovanni; Chan Voong; Samantha F Butts; Susan M Domchek Journal: Menopause Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Carolyn Y Fang; Carol Cherry; Karthik Devarajan; Tianyu Li; John Malick; Mary B Daly Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Peter J Schmidt; Emma M Steinberg; Paula Palladino Negro; Nazli Haq; Carolyn Gibson; David R Rubinow Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2008-03-19 Impact factor: 7.853