OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors affecting uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) over time in women at high-risk of familial ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Tertiary high-risk familial gynaecological cancer clinic. POPULATION/SAMPLE: New clinic attendees between March 2004 and November 2009, fulfilling the high-risk criteria for the UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study. METHODS: Risk management options discussed included RRSO and ovarian surveillance. Outcome data were analysed from a bespoke database. The competing risk method was used to model the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of RRSO over time, and the sub-hazard ratio (SHR) was used to assess the strength of the association of variables of interest with RRSO. Gray's test was used to evaluate the difference in CIF between two groups and multivariable competing risk regression analysis was used to model the cumulative probabilities of covariates on the CIF. RESULTS: Of 1133 eligible women, 265 (21.4%) opted for RRSO and 868 (69.9%) chose screening. Women undergoing RRSO were older (49 years, interquartile range 12.2 years) than those preferring screening (43.4 years, interquartile range 11.9 years) (P < 0.0005). The CIF for RRSO at 5 years was 0.55 (95% CI 0.45-0.64) for BRCA1/2 carriers and 0.22 (95% CI 0.19-0.26) for women of unknown mutation status (P < 0.0001); 0.42 (95% CI 0.36-0.47) for postmenopausal women (P < 0.0001); 0.29 (95% CI 0.25-0.33) for parity ≥1 (P = 0.009) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.39-0.55) for a personal history of breast cancer (P < 0.0001). Variables of significance from the regression analysis were: a BRCA1/2 mutation (SHR 2.31, 95% CI 1.7-3.14), postmenopausal status (SHR 2.16, 95% CI 1.62-2.87)) and a personal history of breast cancer (SHR 1.5, 95% CI 1.09-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making is a complex process and women opt for surgery many years after initial risk assessment. BRCA carriers, postmenopausal women and women who had breast cancer are significantly more likely to opt for preventative surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors affecting uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) over time in women at high-risk of familial ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Tertiary high-risk familial gynaecological cancer clinic. POPULATION/SAMPLE: New clinic attendees between March 2004 and November 2009, fulfilling the high-risk criteria for the UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study. METHODS: Risk management options discussed included RRSO and ovarian surveillance. Outcome data were analysed from a bespoke database. The competing risk method was used to model the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of RRSO over time, and the sub-hazard ratio (SHR) was used to assess the strength of the association of variables of interest with RRSO. Gray's test was used to evaluate the difference in CIF between two groups and multivariable competing risk regression analysis was used to model the cumulative probabilities of covariates on the CIF. RESULTS: Of 1133 eligible women, 265 (21.4%) opted for RRSO and 868 (69.9%) chose screening. Women undergoing RRSO were older (49 years, interquartile range 12.2 years) than those preferring screening (43.4 years, interquartile range 11.9 years) (P < 0.0005). The CIF for RRSO at 5 years was 0.55 (95% CI 0.45-0.64) for BRCA1/2 carriers and 0.22 (95% CI 0.19-0.26) for women of unknown mutation status (P < 0.0001); 0.42 (95% CI 0.36-0.47) for postmenopausal women (P < 0.0001); 0.29 (95% CI 0.25-0.33) for parity ≥1 (P = 0.009) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.39-0.55) for a personal history of breast cancer (P < 0.0001). Variables of significance from the regression analysis were: a BRCA1/2 mutation (SHR 2.31, 95% CI 1.7-3.14), postmenopausal status (SHR 2.16, 95% CI 1.62-2.87)) and a personal history of breast cancer (SHR 1.5, 95% CI 1.09-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making is a complex process and women opt for surgery many years after initial risk assessment. BRCA carriers, postmenopausal women and women who had breast cancer are significantly more likely to opt for preventative surgery.
Authors: Phuong L Mai; Marion Piedmonte; Paul K Han; Richard P Moser; Joan L Walker; Gustavo Rodriguez; John Boggess; Thomas J Rutherford; Oliver Zivanovic; David E Cohn; J Tate Thigpen; Robert M Wenham; Michael L Friedlander; Chad A Hamilton; Jamie Bakkum-Gamez; Alexander B Olawaiye; Martee L Hensley; Mark H Greene; Helen Q Huang; Lari Wenzel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kathleen F Mittendorf; Sarah Knerr; Tia L Kauffman; Nangel M Lindberg; Katherine P Anderson; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Marian J Gilmore; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Galen Joseph; Stephanie A Kraft; Jamilyn M Zepp; Sapna Syngal; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-11-03
Authors: Gabriel N Mannis; Julia E Fehniger; Jennifer S Creasman; Vanessa L Jacoby; Mary S Beattie Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Sukh Makhnoon; Grace Tran; Brooke Levin; Kristin D Mattie; Brian Dreyer; Robert J Volk; Generosa Grana; Banu K Arun; Susan K Peterson Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amelie G Ramirez; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Gregory A Talavera; Frank J Penedo; J Emilio Carrillo; Maria E Fernandez; Edgar Muñoz; Dorothy Long Parma; Alan Ec Holden; Sandra San Miguel de Majors; Anna Nápoles; Sheila F Castañeda; Kipling J Gallion Journal: Springerplus Date: 2013-03-05