OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define the rate of neoplasia in prophylactic surgical specimens with the use of a careful surgical and pathologic protocol in a prospective study of high-risk women who were undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Outcomes of interest were neoplasia that was identified in surgical specimens and clinical outcomes of women who were undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. We hypothesized that older age and having a BRCA1 mutation would be predictors for tubal or ovarian neoplasia and that a careful surgical and pathologic protocol would lead to a low rate of subsequent primary peritoneal cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective tissue and research database enrolled patients who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for prevention of ovarian cancer. Clinical and pathologic data were extracted for those patients after the initiation of a defined surgical and pathologic protocol in 1999. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen women met the high-risk criteria; 40 of the women (45%) who were tested had a deleterious mutation in BRCA1, and 22 women (25%) had a mutation in BRCA2. Seven women had ovarian or tubal neoplasia (6.2%). One woman had occult endometrial cancer. Age > or =45 years and having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were significant predictors of occult neoplasia. Two patients with neoplasia that was identified at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy experienced recurrence. Three patients with BRCA1 mutations have subsequent new diagnoses of breast cancer. No patients had primary peritoneal cancer after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. CONCLUSION: Age > or =45 years and mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 predict occult neoplasia in women who undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. A thorough pathologic and surgical protocol at the time of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy may improve the risk of subsequent primary peritoneal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define the rate of neoplasia in prophylactic surgical specimens with the use of a careful surgical and pathologic protocol in a prospective study of high-risk women who were undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Outcomes of interest were neoplasia that was identified in surgical specimens and clinical outcomes of women who were undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. We hypothesized that older age and having a BRCA1 mutation would be predictors for tubal or ovarian neoplasia and that a careful surgical and pathologic protocol would lead to a low rate of subsequent primary peritoneal cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective tissue and research database enrolled patients who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for prevention of ovarian cancer. Clinical and pathologic data were extracted for those patients after the initiation of a defined surgical and pathologic protocol in 1999. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen women met the high-risk criteria; 40 of the women (45%) who were tested had a deleterious mutation in BRCA1, and 22 women (25%) had a mutation in BRCA2. Seven women had ovarian or tubal neoplasia (6.2%). One woman had occult endometrial cancer. Age > or =45 years and having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were significant predictors of occult neoplasia. Two patients with neoplasia that was identified at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy experienced recurrence. Three patients with BRCA1 mutations have subsequent new diagnoses of breast cancer. No patients had primary peritoneal cancer after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. CONCLUSION: Age > or =45 years and mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 predict occult neoplasia in women who undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. A thorough pathologic and surgical protocol at the time of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy may improve the risk of subsequent primary peritoneal cancer.
Authors: Stephanie L Wethington; Kay J Park; Robert A Soslow; Noah D Kauff; Carol L Brown; Fanny Dao; Ebunoluwa Otegbeye; Yukio Sonoda; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Richard R Barakat; Douglas A Levine; Ginger J Gardner Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Melinda S Yates; Larissa A Meyer; Michael T Deavers; Molly S Daniels; Elizabeth R Keeler; Samuel C Mok; David M Gershenson; Karen H Lu Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-01-28
Authors: Marie E Perrone; Nicholas P Reder; Sergay N Agoff; Rochelle L Garcia; Kathy J Agnew; Barbara M Norquist; Kathryn P Pennington; Elizabeth M Swisher; Mark R Kilgore Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: C B Powell; E M Swisher; I Cass; J McLennan; B Norquist; R L Garcia; J Lester; B Y Karlan; L Chen Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joshua Z Press; Kaitlyn Wurz; Barbara M Norquist; Ming K Lee; Christopher Pennil; Rochelle Garcia; Piri Welcsh; Barbara A Goff; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Talayeh S Ghezelayagh; Lauren E Stewart; Barbara M Norquist; Deborah J Bowen; Vivian Yu; Kathy J Agnew; Kathryn P Pennington; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Henry T Lynch; Murray Joseph Casey; Carrie L Snyder; Chhanda Bewtra; Jane F Lynch; Matthew Butts; Andrew K Godwin Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 6.603