Denise R Nebgen1, Jean Hurteau2, Laura L Holman3, Andrea Bradford3, Mark F Munsell3, Beth R Soletsky3, Charlotte C Sun3, Gary B Chisholm3, Karen H Lu3. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. Electronic address: dnebgen@mdanderson.org. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, NorthShore University Health System, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Evanston, IL, United States. 3. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) reduces ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but the adverse effects of the associated early-onset surgical menopause are problematic. Despite suggestive evidence, no data demonstrate whether bilateral salpingectomy alone lowers the risk of developing ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. We conducted a pilot study of bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (BS/DO) in BRCA mutation carriers to determine the safety and acceptability of the procedure. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, non-randomized pilot study, pre-menopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aged 30 to 47 years chose screening, RRSO, or BS/DO. For those undergoing BS/DO, the delayed oophorectomy was recommended at age 40 years for BRCA1 and age 45 years for BRCA2 patients. We compared surgical and psychosocial outcomes between time points and between arms. RESULTS: Of the 43 patients enrolled, 19 (44%) chose BS/DO, 12 (28%) chose RRSO, and 12 (28%) chose screening. The cohort was 37% BRCA1 carriers and 63% BRCA2 carriers. One serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) was found in an RRSO patient, and no cases of occult ovarian cancers were found. There were no surgical complications. Twelve months after surgery, responses on the Cancer Worry Scale indicated decreased worry in the BS/DO (P < 0.0001) and RRSO (P = 0.01) arms, while responses on the State Anxiety Inventory indicated decreased anxiety in the BS/DO arm (P = 0.02) compared with preoperative responses. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, BRCA mutation carriers who underwent bilateral salpingectomy had no intraoperative complications, were satisfied with their procedure choice, and had decreased cancer worry and anxiety after the procedure.
OBJECTIVE: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) reduces ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but the adverse effects of the associated early-onset surgical menopause are problematic. Despite suggestive evidence, no data demonstrate whether bilateral salpingectomy alone lowers the risk of developing ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. We conducted a pilot study of bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (BS/DO) in BRCA mutation carriers to determine the safety and acceptability of the procedure. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, non-randomized pilot study, pre-menopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aged 30 to 47 years chose screening, RRSO, or BS/DO. For those undergoing BS/DO, the delayed oophorectomy was recommended at age 40 years for BRCA1 and age 45 years for BRCA2patients. We compared surgical and psychosocial outcomes between time points and between arms. RESULTS: Of the 43 patients enrolled, 19 (44%) chose BS/DO, 12 (28%) chose RRSO, and 12 (28%) chose screening. The cohort was 37% BRCA1 carriers and 63% BRCA2 carriers. One serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) was found in an RRSO patient, and no cases of occult ovarian cancers were found. There were no surgical complications. Twelve months after surgery, responses on the Cancer Worry Scale indicated decreased worry in the BS/DO (P < 0.0001) and RRSO (P = 0.01) arms, while responses on the State Anxiety Inventory indicated decreased anxiety in the BS/DO arm (P = 0.02) compared with preoperative responses. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, BRCA mutation carriers who underwent bilateral salpingectomy had no intraoperative complications, were satisfied with their procedure choice, and had decreased cancer worry and anxiety after the procedure.
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: Kathryn A Mills; Tanvi V Joshi; Lindsay West; Michelle Kuznicki; Laura Kent; Alexis N Hokenstad; James C Cripe; Candice Woolfolk; Leigha Senter; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Robert M Wenham; David E Cohn; Victoria Bae-Jump; Premal H Thaker Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ying L Liu; Kelsey Breen; Amanda Catchings; Megha Ranganathan; Alicia Latham; Deborah J Goldfrank; Rachel N Grisham; Kara Long Roche; Melissa K Frey; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem Abu-Rustum; Carol Aghajanian; Kenneth Offit; Zsofia K Stadler Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-09-28
Authors: Nicole Lugo Santiago; Evan Smith; Mary Cox; Carrie S Wan; Nana E Tchabo; Ibraheem Awowole; Vance Broach; Dennis S Chi Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: George U Eleje; Ahizechukwu C Eke; Ifeanyichukwu U Ezebialu; Joseph I Ikechebelu; Emmanuel O Ugwu; Onyinye O Okonkwo Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-24