Laura L Holman1, Sue Friedman2, Molly S Daniels3, Charlotte C Sun3, Karen H Lu3. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: llholman@mdanderson.org. 2. Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given the emerging evidence for the fimbria as the site of origin for many serous carcinomas in BRCA mutation carriers, consideration is being given in studying prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (PSDO) as a risk-reducing surgery. We aimed to determine the interest in a study of PSDO among these women. METHODS: We evaluated the results of an online survey conducted by Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), a patient advocacy group, from October 2010 to August 2012. Premenopausal BRCA mutation carriers with no history of ovarian cancer or prior bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) were included. RESULTS: Of the 204 women meeting inclusion criteria, median age was 35 years, 92.5% were white, 25.7% were Jewish, and 16.7% had a history of breast cancer. Overall, 34.3% reported interest in a study of salpingectomy, 35.3% were unsure, and 30.4% were not interested in the study. Women noted the possibility of lowering ovarian cancer risk without menopause as a compelling reason to participate (83.8%). Reasons for not participating in a salpingectomy study included surgical complications (46.6%), potential ovarian damage (42.2%), planning BSO soon (32.4%), and surgical costs (32.8%). Acceptable study risks included the need for two surgeries (77.2%), possibility of not lowering ovarian cancer risk (68%), and disruption of ovarian blood supply (66.5%). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of BRCA mutation carriers indicated definite interest in a PSDO study. Potential study risks were acceptable to most women. These findings suggest that patient accrual for a clinical trial of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is possible.
OBJECTIVE: Given the emerging evidence for the fimbria as the site of origin for many serous carcinomas in BRCA mutation carriers, consideration is being given in studying prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (PSDO) as a risk-reducing surgery. We aimed to determine the interest in a study of PSDO among these women. METHODS: We evaluated the results of an online survey conducted by Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), a patient advocacy group, from October 2010 to August 2012. Premenopausal BRCA mutation carriers with no history of ovarian cancer or prior bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) were included. RESULTS: Of the 204 women meeting inclusion criteria, median age was 35 years, 92.5% were white, 25.7% were Jewish, and 16.7% had a history of breast cancer. Overall, 34.3% reported interest in a study of salpingectomy, 35.3% were unsure, and 30.4% were not interested in the study. Women noted the possibility of lowering ovarian cancer risk without menopause as a compelling reason to participate (83.8%). Reasons for not participating in a salpingectomy study included surgical complications (46.6%), potential ovarian damage (42.2%), planning BSO soon (32.4%), and surgical costs (32.8%). Acceptable study risks included the need for two surgeries (77.2%), possibility of not lowering ovarian cancer risk (68%), and disruption of ovarian blood supply (66.5%). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of BRCA mutation carriers indicated definite interest in a PSDO study. Potential study risks were acceptable to most women. These findings suggest that patient accrual for a clinical trial of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is possible.
Authors: Fabiola Medeiros; Michael G Muto; Yonghee Lee; Julia A Elvin; Michael J Callahan; Colleen Feltmate; Judy E Garber; Daniel W Cramer; Christopher P Crum Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timothy R Rebbeck; Henry T Lynch; Susan L Neuhausen; Steven A Narod; Laura Van't Veer; Judy E Garber; Gareth Evans; Claudine Isaacs; Mary B Daly; Ellen Matloff; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Bethan Powell; Eric Kenley; Lee-May Chen; Beth Crawford; Jane McLennan; Charles Zaloudek; Miriam Komaromy; Mary Beattie; John Ziegler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Eisen; Jan Lubinski; Jan Klijn; Pal Moller; Henry T Lynch; Kenneth Offit; Barbara Weber; Tim Rebbeck; Susan L Neuhausen; Parviz Ghadirian; William D Foulkes; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Eitan Friedman; Gadi Rennert; Teresa Wagner; Claudine Isaacs; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Peter Ainsworth; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Callahan; Christopher P Crum; Fabiola Medeiros; David W Kindelberger; Julia A Elvin; Judy E Garber; Colleen M Feltmate; Ross S Berkowitz; Michael G Muto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Susan L Neuhausen; Theresa Wagner; Gareth Evans; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Mary B Daly; Rosalind Eeles; Ellen Matloff; Gail E Tomlinson; Laura Van't Veer; Henry T Lynch; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Beth Y Karlan; Jason Thorpe; Kate Watabayashi; Charles W Drescher; Melanie Palomares; Mary B Daly; Pam Paley; Paula Hillard; M Robyn Andersen; Garnet Anderson; Ronny Drapkin; Nicole Urban Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 4.254