Nicole Lugo Santiago1, Evan Smith, Mary Cox, Carrie S Wan, Nana E Tchabo, Ibraheem Awowole, Vance Broach, Dennis S Chi. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Atlantic Health System, Morristown, New Jersey; Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria; and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have a lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of up to 46%. Opportunistic salpingectomy has been advocated as a risk-reducing strategy owing to increasing recognition of tubal origin, yet evidence of efficacy in this high-risk population is limited. CASE: This is the case of a woman with a BRCA1 mutation who underwent prophylactic mastectomy and bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian retention before the age of 40 years. She did not undergo oophorectomy and subsequently developed stage IV high-grade serous ovarian cancer 4 years after her initial surgery. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to determine the role of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy, optimal timing of completion oophorectomy, and the risks and benefits compared with up-front risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
BACKGROUND: Women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have a lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of up to 46%. Opportunistic salpingectomy has been advocated as a risk-reducing strategy owing to increasing recognition of tubal origin, yet evidence of efficacy in this high-risk population is limited. CASE: This is the case of a woman with a BRCA1 mutation who underwent prophylactic mastectomy and bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian retention before the age of 40 years. She did not undergo oophorectomy and subsequently developed stage IV high-grade serous ovarian cancer 4 years after her initial surgery. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to determine the role of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy, optimal timing of completion oophorectomy, and the risks and benefits compared with up-front risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
Authors: Marline G Harmsen; Jurgen M J Piek; Johan Bulten; Murray J Casey; Timothy R Rebbeck; Marian J Mourits; Mark H Greene; Brigitte F M Slangen; Marc van Beurden; Leon F A G Massuger; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Joanne A de Hullu Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Denise R Nebgen; Jean Hurteau; Laura L Holman; Andrea Bradford; Mark F Munsell; Beth R Soletsky; Charlotte C Sun; Gary B Chisholm; Karen H Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mary B Daly; Charles W Dresher; Melinda S Yates; Joanne M Jeter; Beth Y Karlan; David S Alberts; Karen H Lu Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-01-13
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: Jacek Gronwald; Jan Lubinski; Tomasz Huzarski; Cezary Cybulski; Janusz Menkiszak; Monika Siołek; Małgorzata Stawicka; Ping Sun; Shana J Kim; Joanne Kotsopoulos; Steven A Narod Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Comfort N Ibe; James J Dignam; Shelly A Cummings; Marion Verp; Melody A White; Grazia Artioli; Laura Dudlicek; Olufunmilayo I Olopade Journal: Genet Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 8.822