Claire Thompson1, Ciara McCormick2, Waseem Kamran2, Ciaran O'Riain3, Lucy Norris4, David Gallagher5, Noreen Gleeson2. 1. Gynaecological Oncology Department, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. clairethompson84@doctors.org.uk. 2. Gynaecological Oncology Department, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Histopathology Department, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Medical Oncology Department, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most common tubo-ovarian cancer. The fallopian tube harbours the precursor lesion: serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is an effective risk-reducing surgical (RRS) strategy for breast cancer susceptibility gene mutation carriers (BRCAm). The value of RRS in those without defined genetic risk is unknown but these women represent a substantial cohort in prophylactic surgical practice. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of RRS at an Irish university teaching hospital. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty women underwent RRS; group 1 = 46 BRCAm; group 2 = 19 BRCAm negative/65 genetic status unknown. Group 1 had one occult HGSC. Group 2 had no STIC or cancers and were older and more likely to have hysterectomy and benign pathology. Other pathologies included serous tubal intraepithelial lesions (STIL) (2), p53 signatures (2), endometriosis (6), fibroids/adenomyosis (4) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (1). CONCLUSION: More than 60% of women undergoing RRS were BRCAm negative or untested. Counselling of high-risk women without defined germline mutations remains a challenge for gynaecologists because the likelihood of removing STIC lesions or occult invasive cancer is low. Removal of coincidental pathology may give added value to RRS in these women.
BACKGROUND: High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most common tubo-ovarian cancer. The fallopian tube harbours the precursor lesion: serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is an effective risk-reducing surgical (RRS) strategy for breast cancer susceptibility gene mutation carriers (BRCAm). The value of RRS in those without defined genetic risk is unknown but these women represent a substantial cohort in prophylactic surgical practice. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of RRS at an Irish university teaching hospital. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty women underwent RRS; group 1 = 46 BRCAm; group 2 = 19 BRCAm negative/65 genetic status unknown. Group 1 had one occult HGSC. Group 2 had no STIC or cancers and were older and more likely to have hysterectomy and benign pathology. Other pathologies included serous tubal intraepithelial lesions (STIL) (2), p53 signatures (2), endometriosis (6), fibroids/adenomyosis (4) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (1). CONCLUSION: More than 60% of women undergoing RRS were BRCAm negative or untested. Counselling of high-risk women without defined germline mutations remains a challenge for gynaecologists because the likelihood of removing STIC lesions or occult invasive cancer is low. Removal of coincidental pathology may give added value to RRS in these women.
Entities:
Keywords:
BRCA mutation; Risk reduction surgery; Tubo-ovarian cancer
Authors: M W Kamran; D Vaughan; D Crosby; N A Wahab; F A Saadeh; N Gleeson Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2013-07-21 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: C Bethan Powell; Lee-may Chen; Jane McLennan; Beth Crawford; Charles Zaloudek; Joseph T Rabban; Dan H Moore; John Ziegler Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Janice S Kwon; Anna Tinker; Gary Pansegrau; Jessica McAlpine; Melissa Housty; Mary McCullum; C Blake Gilks Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kathryn Alsop; Sian Fereday; Cliff Meldrum; Anna deFazio; Catherine Emmanuel; Joshy George; Alexander Dobrovic; Michael J Birrer; Penelope M Webb; Colin Stewart; Michael Friedlander; Stephen Fox; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Vorwergk; M P Radosa; K Nicolaus; N Baus; J Jimenez Cruz; M Rengsberger; M Gajda; H Diebolder; I B Runnebaum Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Ann G Schwartz; Faisal Qureshi; Suzanne Jacques; John Malone; Adnan R Munkarah Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Joep M A Bogaerts; Miranda P Steenbeek; Majke H D van Bommel; Johan Bulten; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Joanne A de Hullu; Michiel Simons Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.535