1
|
Terra L, Lee Meeuw Kjoe PR, Agelink van Rentergem JA, Beekman MJ, Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, van Beurden M, Roeters van Lennep JE, van Doorn HC, de Hullu JA, Mourits MJE, van Dorst EBL, Mom CH, Slangen BFM, Gaarenstroom KN, van der Kolk LE, Collée JM, Wevers MR, Ausems MGEM, van Engelen K, van de Beek I, Berger LPV, van Asperen CJ, Gomez Garcia EB, Maas AHEM, Hooning MJ, van der Wall E, van Leeuwen FE, Schagen SB. Long-term effects of premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy on cognition in women with high familial risk of ovarian cancer: A cross-sectional study. BJOG 2023; 130:968-977. [PMID: 36715559 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2022] [Revised: 12/18/2022] [Accepted: 01/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the effect of a premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer on objective and subjective cognition at least 10 years after RRSO. DESIGN A cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up, nested in a nationwide cohort. SETTING Multicentre in the Netherlands. POPULATION OR SAMPLE 641 women (66% BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers) who underwent either a premenopausal RRSO ≤ age 45 (n = 436) or a postmenopausal RRSO ≥ age 54 (n = 205). All participants were older than 55 years at recruitment. METHODS Participants completed an online cognitive test battery and a questionnaire on subjective cognition. We used multivariable regression analyses, adjusting for age, education, breast cancer, hormone replacement therapy, cardiovascular risk factors and depression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The influence of RRSO on objective and subjective cognition of women with a premenopausal RRSO compared with women with a postmenopausal RRSO. RESULTS After adjustment, women with a premenopausal RRSO (mean time since RRSO 18.2 years) performed similarly on objective cognitive tests compared with women with a postmenopausal RRSO (mean time since RRSO 11.9 years). However, they more frequently reported problems with reasoning (odds ratio [OR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.1-3.1) and multitasking (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.4) than women with a postmenopausal RRSO. This difference between groups disappeared in an analysis restricted to women of comparable ages (60-70 years). CONCLUSIONS Reassuringly, approximately 18 years after RRSO, we found no association between premenopausal RRSO and objective cognition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lara Terra
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Philippe R Lee Meeuw Kjoe
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Maarten J Beekman
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marc van Beurden
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Helena C van Doorn
- Department for Gynaecologic Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joanna A de Hullu
- Department for Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Marian J E Mourits
- Department for Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Eleonora B L van Dorst
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Constantijne H Mom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Brigitte F M Slangen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Katja N Gaarenstroom
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Lizet E van der Kolk
- Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Margriet Collée
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marijke R Wevers
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Margreet G E M Ausems
- Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Klaartje van Engelen
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Irma van de Beek
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lieke P V Berger
- Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Encarna B Gomez Garcia
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Angela H E M Maas
- Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elsken van der Wall
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Flora E van Leeuwen
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sanne B Schagen
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Manley K, Ryan N, Jenner A, Newton C, Hillard T. Counselling of path_ BRCA carriers who are considering risk-reducing oophorectomy. Post Reprod Health 2023; 29:42-52. [PMID: 36757900 DOI: 10.1177/20533691231156640] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/10/2023]
Abstract
path_BRCA 1/2 increases a woman's lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Interventions can be offered which manage cancer risk; annual breast screening from age 30, chemoprevention and, once a woman's family is complete, risk-reducing surgery. The latter is the most effective method of reducing cancer in path_BRCA carriers; salpingo-oophorectomy reduces breast and ovarian cancer, respectively, by up to 50% and 95%. Factors affecting a woman's decision to undergo risk-reducing surgery are complex; dominant factors include risks of surgery, effect on cancer outcomes and menopausal sequelae. Specific information relating to hormone replacement and non-hormonal alternatives are an important consideration for women but, are often overlooked. Informative counselling is required to enable satisfaction with the chosen intervention whilst improving survival outcomes. This review paper outlines the current data pertaining to these decision-making factors and provides a proforma to enable effective counselling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristyn Manley
- Department of Gynaecology, 1984University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.,The Academic Women's Health Unit, Translational Women's Health Sciences, 152004University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Neil Ryan
- The Academic Women's Health Unit, Translational Women's Health Sciences, 152004University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,Department of Gynaecology Oncology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
| | - Abigail Jenner
- Department of Gynaecology, 1984University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.,Department of Oncology, 1556Royal United Hospitals Bath, Bath, UK
| | - Claire Newton
- Department of Gynaecology, 1984University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.,The Academic Women's Health Unit, Translational Women's Health Sciences, 152004University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Timothy Hillard
- Department of Gynaecology, 6655University Hospitals Dorset, Poole, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ahn HS, Ho JY, Yu J, Yeom J, Lee S, Hur SY, Jung Y, Kim K, Choi YJ. Plasma Protein Biomarkers Associated with Higher Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Carriers. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13102300. [PMID: 34064977 PMCID: PMC8150736 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13102300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2021] [Revised: 05/03/2021] [Accepted: 05/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Most hereditary ovarian cancer is associated with BRCA1/2 variants, and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy during the follow-up monitoring of ovarian cancer development in heathy women with the BRCA1/2 variant reduces ovarian cancer incidence. The aim of this study was to identify plasma protein biomarkers that can indicate an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer using a proteomic approach based on a population of genetic variants. Two identified biomarkers among differentially expressed proteins, SPARC and THBS1, had lower plasma concentrations in healthy BRCA1/2 variant carriers than in ovarian cancer patients with the BRCA1/2 variant; concentration of two proteins increased at the onset of ovarian cancer. These protein markers from non-invasive liquid biopsy sampling could be used to help women with the BRCA1/2 variant determine whether to undergo an oophorectomy that could potentially affect the quality of life. Abstract Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy and in-time diagnosis is limited because of the absence of effective biomarkers. Germline BRCA1/2 genetic alterations are risk factors for hereditary OC; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is pursued for disease prevention. However, not all healthy carriers develop the disease. Therefore, identifying predictive markers in the BRCA1/2 carrier population could help improve the identification of candidates for preventive RRSO. In this study, plasma samples from 20 OC patients (10 patients with BRCA1/2 wild type (wt) and 10 with the BRCA1/2 variant (var)) and 20 normal subjects (10 subjects with BRCA1/2wt and 10 with BRCA1/2var) were analyzed for potential biomarkers of hereditary OC. We applied a bottom-up proteomics approach, using nano-flow LC-MS to analyze depleted plasma proteome quantitatively, and potential plasma protein markers specific to the BRCA1/2 variant were identified from a comparative statistical analysis of the four groups. We obtained 1505 protein candidates from the 40 subjects, and SPARC and THBS1 were verified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Plasma SPARC and THBS1 concentrations in healthy BRCA1/2 carriers were found to be lower than in OC patients with BRCA1/2var. If plasma SPARC concentrations increase over 337.35 ng/mL or plasma THBS1 concentrations increase over 65.28 μg/mL in a healthy BRCA1/2 carrier, oophorectomy may be suggested.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hee-Sung Ahn
- Asan Medical Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul 05505, Korea; (H.-S.A.); (J.Y.)
| | - Jung Yoon Ho
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea; (J.Y.H.); (S.L.); (S.Y.H.); (Y.J.)
- Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
| | - Jiyoung Yu
- Asan Medical Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul 05505, Korea; (H.-S.A.); (J.Y.)
| | - Jeonghun Yeom
- Convergence Medicine Research Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea;
| | - Sanha Lee
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea; (J.Y.H.); (S.L.); (S.Y.H.); (Y.J.)
| | - Soo Young Hur
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea; (J.Y.H.); (S.L.); (S.Y.H.); (Y.J.)
- Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
| | - Yuyeon Jung
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea; (J.Y.H.); (S.L.); (S.Y.H.); (Y.J.)
- Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
| | - Kyunggon Kim
- Asan Medical Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul 05505, Korea; (H.-S.A.); (J.Y.)
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul 05505, Korea
- Convergence Medicine Research Center, Asan Medical Center, Clinical Proteomics Core Laboratory, Seoul 05505, Korea
- Asan Medical Center, Bio-Medical Institute of Technology, Seoul 05505, Korea
- Correspondence: (K.K.); (Y.J.C.); Tel.: +82-2-1688-7575 (K.K.); +82-2-2258-2810 (Y.J.C.)
| | - Youn Jin Choi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea; (J.Y.H.); (S.L.); (S.Y.H.); (Y.J.)
- Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
- Correspondence: (K.K.); (Y.J.C.); Tel.: +82-2-1688-7575 (K.K.); +82-2-2258-2810 (Y.J.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Terra L, Hooning MJ, Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, van Beurden M, Roeters van Lennep JE, van Doorn HC, de Hullu JA, Mom C, van Dorst EBL, Mourits MJE, Slangen BFM, Gaarenstroom KN, Zillikens MC, Leiner T, van der Kolk L, Collee M, Wevers M, Ausems MGEM, van Engelen K, Berger LP, van Asperen CJ, Gomez-Garcia EB, van de Beek I, Rookus MA, Hauptmann M, Bleiker EM, Schagen SB, Aaronson NK, Maas AHEM, van Leeuwen FE. Long-Term Morbidity and Health After Early Menopause Due to Oophorectomy in Women at Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer: Protocol for a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study With Prospective Follow-Up (HARMOny Study). JMIR Res Protoc 2021; 10:e24414. [PMID: 33480862 PMCID: PMC7864779 DOI: 10.2196/24414] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2020] [Revised: 11/13/2020] [Accepted: 11/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Background BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are recommended to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) at 35 to 45 years of age. RRSO substantially decreases ovarian cancer risk, but at the cost of immediate menopause. Knowledge about the potential adverse effects of premenopausal RRSO, such as increased risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction, and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), is limited. Objective The aim of this study is to assess the long-term health effects of premenopausal RRSO on cardiovascular disease, bone health, cognitive functioning, urological complaints, sexual functioning, and HRQoL in women with high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Methods We will conduct a multicenter cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up, nested in a nationwide cohort of women at high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer. A total of 500 women who have undergone RRSO before 45 years of age, with a follow-up period of at least 10 years, will be compared with 250 women (frequency matched on current age) who have not undergone RRSO or who have undergone RRSO at over 55 years of age. Participants will complete an online questionnaire on lifestyle, medical history, cardiovascular risk factors, osteoporosis, cognitive function, urological complaints, and HRQoL. A full cardiovascular assessment and assessment of bone mineral density will be performed. Blood samples will be obtained for marker analysis. Cognitive functioning will be assessed objectively with an online neuropsychological test battery. Results This study was approved by the institutional review board in July 2018. In February 2019, we included our first participant. As of November 2020, we had enrolled 364 participants in our study. Conclusions Knowledge from this study will contribute to counseling women with a high familial risk of breast/ovarian cancer about the long-term health effects of premenopausal RRSO. The results can also be used to offer health recommendations after RRSO. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03835793; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03835793. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/24414
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lara Terra
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maartje J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Marc van Beurden
- Department of Gynaecology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Helena C van Doorn
- Department for Gynaecologic Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Joanne A de Hullu
- Department for Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Constantijne Mom
- Department of Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eleonora B L van Dorst
- Department for Gynaecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Marian J E Mourits
- Department for Gynaecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Brigitte F M Slangen
- Department for Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Katja N Gaarenstroom
- Department of Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - M Carola Zillikens
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Tim Leiner
- Department Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Lizet van der Kolk
- Family Cancer Clinic, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Margriet Collee
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marijke Wevers
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Margreet G E M Ausems
- Division of Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Klaartje van Engelen
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Lieke Pv Berger
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | | | - Irma van de Beek
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Matti A Rookus
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Eveline M Bleiker
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sanne B Schagen
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Neil K Aaronson
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Angela H E M Maas
- Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Flora E van Leeuwen
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gaba F, Blyuss O, Chandrasekaran D, Osman M, Goyal S, Gan C, Izatt L, Tripathi V, Esteban I, McNicol L, Ragupathy K, Crawford R, Evans DG, Legood R, Menon U, Manchanda R. Attitudes towards risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer prevention: a cohort study. BJOG 2020; 128:714-726. [PMID: 32803845 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/13/2020] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) acceptability and effect of surgical prevention on menopausal sequelae/satisfaction/regret in women at increased ovarian cancer (OC) risk. DESIGN Multicentre, cohort, questionnaire study (IRSCTN:12310993). SETTING United Kingdom (UK). POPULATION UK women without OC ≥18 years, at increased OC risk, with/without previous RRSO, ascertained through specialist familial cancer/genetic clinics and BRCA support groups. METHODS Participants completed a 39-item questionnaire. Baseline characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. Logistic/linear regression models analysed the impact of variables on RRESDO acceptability and health outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES RRESDO acceptability, menopausal sequelae, satisfaction/regret. RESULTS In all, 346 of 683 participants underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Of premenopausal women who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% (181/262) found it acceptable to participate in a research study offering RRESDO. Premenopausal women concerned about sexual dysfunction were more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (odds ratio [OR] = 2.9, 95% CI 1.2-7.7, P = 0.025). Women experiencing sexual dysfunction after premenopausal RRSO were more likely to find RRESDO acceptable in retrospect (OR = 5.3, 95% CI 1.2-27.5, P < 0.031). In all, 88.8% (143/161) premenopausal and 95.2% (80/84) postmenopausal women who underwent RRSO, respectively, were satisfied with their decision, whereas 9.4% (15/160) premenopausal and 1.2% (1/81) postmenopausal women who underwent RRSO regretted their decision. HRT uptake in premenopausal individuals without breast cancer (BC) was 74.1% (80/108). HRT use did not significantly affect satisfaction/regret levels but did reduce symptoms of vaginal dryness (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, P = 0.025). CONCLUSION Data show high RRESDO acceptability, particularly in women concerned about sexual dysfunction. Although RRSO satisfaction remains high, regret rates are much higher for premenopausal women than for postmenopausal women. HRT use following premenopausal RRSO does not increase satisfaction but does reduce vaginal dryness. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT RRESDO has high acceptability among premenopausal women at increased ovarian cancer risk, particularly those concerned about sexual dysfunction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.,Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - O Blyuss
- School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.,Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.,Department of Applied Mathematics, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
| | - D Chandrasekaran
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.,Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - M Osman
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK
| | - S Goyal
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK
| | - C Gan
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - L Izatt
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - V Tripathi
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - I Esteban
- Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
| | - L McNicol
- Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
| | | | - R Crawford
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - D G Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, MAHSC, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - R Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - U Menon
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - R Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.,Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.,MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ma YN, Bu HL, Jin CJ, Wang X, Zhang YZ, Zhang H. Peritoneal cancer after bilateral mastectomy, hysterectomy, and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a poor prognosis: A case report and review of the literature. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7:3872-3880. [PMID: 31799317 PMCID: PMC6887594 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i22.3872] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2019] [Revised: 09/19/2019] [Accepted: 10/05/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary peritoneal cancer (PPC) patients with BRCA mutations have a good prognosis; however, for patients with BRCA mutations who are diagnosed with PPC after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (PSO), the prognosis is poor, and survival information is scarce.
CASE SUMMARY We treated a 56-year-old woman with PPC after bilateral mastectomy, hysterectomy, and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. This patient had primary drug resistance and died 12 mo after the diagnosis of PPC. The genetic test performed on this patient indicated the presence of a germline BRCA1 mutation. We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases and extracted studies of patients with BRCA mutations who developed PPC after PSO. After a detailed literature search, we found 30 cases, 7 of which had a history of breast cancer, 14 of which had no history of breast cancer, and 9 of which had an unknown history. The average age of PSO patients was 48.86 years old (range, 31-64 years). The average time interval between the diagnosis of PPC and preventive surgery was 61.03 mo (range, 12-292 mo). The 2-year survival rate for this patient population was 78.26% (18/23), the 3-year survival rate was 50.00% (9/18), and the 5-year survival rate was 6.25% (1/16).
CONCLUSION Patients with BRCA mutations who are diagnosed with PPC after preventative surgery have a poor prognosis. Prevention measures and treatments for these patients need more attention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ya-Na Ma
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
| | - Hua-Lei Bu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
| | - Cheng-Juan Jin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 201620, China
| | - Xia Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
| | - You-Zhong Zhang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
| | - Hui Zhang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Toss A, Molinaro E, Sammarini M, Del Savio MC, Cortesi L, Facchinetti F, Grandi G. Hereditary ovarian cancers: state of the art. Minerva Med 2019; 110:301-319. [DOI: 10.23736/s0026-4806.19.06091-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
|
8
|
Allain DC, Sweet K, Agnese DM. Management Options after Prophylactic Surgeries in Women with BRCA Mutations: A Review. Cancer Control 2017; 14:330-7. [PMID: 17914333 DOI: 10.1177/107327480701400403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Although breast cancer is relatively common, only about 5% of cases are due to inheritance of highly penetrant cancer susceptibility genes. The majority of these are caused by mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are also associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Increased surveillance, chemoprevention, and prophylactic surgeries are standard options for the effective medical management of mutation carriers. However, optimal management of female carriers who choose to undergo prophylactic surgeries is still poorly understood. Methods The authors provide an overview of the current literature regarding medical management options for women carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations and the implications for those individuals who have chosen to undergo prophylactic surgeries. Results BRCA mutation carriers who opt for prophylactic surgeries are still at risk for development of malignancy, and appropriate monitoring is warranted. Conclusions There are limited data on the appropriate medical management for BRCA mutation carriers after prophylactic surgeries. However, a management plan can be extrapolated from the general management recommendations for surveillance and other risk-reducing strategies in BRCA-positive individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn C Allain
- Clinical Cancer and Human Cancer Genetics Programs and Department of Internal Medicine, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Manchanda R, Legood R, Antoniou AC, Gordeev VS, Menon U. Specifying the ovarian cancer risk threshold of 'premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy' for ovarian cancer prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Genet 2016; 53:591-9. [PMID: 27354448 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2016-103800] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2016] [Accepted: 04/01/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is the most effective intervention to prevent ovarian cancer (OC). It is only available to high-risk women with >10% lifetime OC risk. This threshold has not been formally tested for cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To specify the OC risk thresholds for RRSO being cost-effective for preventing OC in premenopausal women. METHODS The costs as well as effects of surgical prevention ('RRSO') were compared over a lifetime with 'no RRSO' using a decision analysis model. RRSO was undertaken in premenopausal women >40 years. The model was evaluated at lifetime OC risk levels: 2%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10%. Costs and outcomes are discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty in the model was assessed using both deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Outcomes included in the analyses were OC, breast cancer (BC) and additional deaths from coronary heart disease. Total costs and effects were estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incidence of OC and BC; as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). DATA SOURCES Published literature, Nurses Health Study, British National Formulary, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and National Health Service reference costs. The time horizon is lifetime and perspective: payer. RESULTS Premenopausal RRSO is cost-effective at 4% OC risk (life expectancy gained=42.7 days, ICER=£19 536/QALY) with benefits largely driven by reduction in BC risk. RRSO remains cost-effective at >8.2% OC risk without hormone replacement therapy (ICER=£29 071/QALY, life expectancy gained=21.8 days) or 6%if BC risk reduction=0 (ICER=£27 212/QALY, life expectancy gained=35.3 days). Sensitivity analysis indicated results are not impacted much by costs of surgical prevention or treatment of OC/ BC or cardiovascular disease. However, results were sensitive to RRSO utility scores. Additionally, 37%, 61%, 74%, 84%, 96% and 99.5% simulations on PSA are cost-effective for RRSO at the 2%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% levels of OC risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Premenopausal RRSO appears to be extremely cost-effective at ≥4% lifetime OC risk, with ≥42.7 days gain in life expectancy if compliance with hormone replacement therapy is high. Current guidelines should be re-evaluated to reduce the RRSO OC risk threshold to benefit a number of at-risk women who presently cannot access risk-reducing surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ranjit Manchanda
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK Department of Women's Cancer, Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK
| | - Vladimir S Gordeev
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Usha Menon
- Department of Women's Cancer, Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
van der Aa JE, Hoogendam JP, Butter ESF, Ausems MGEM, Verheijen RHM, Zweemer RP. The effect of personal medical history and family history of cancer on the uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Fam Cancer 2016; 14:539-44. [PMID: 26264902 PMCID: PMC4630248 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-015-9827-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Women with an increased lifetime risk of ovarian cancer are advised to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) to reduce risk of adnexal cancer. We investigated the uptake of RRSO and evaluated the influence of personal medical history of (breast) cancer, risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and family history of ovarian and/or breast cancer on the RRSO decision. This single center retrospective observational cohort study was performed in a tertiary multidisciplinary clinic for hereditary cancer of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands. Women ≥35 years old with an estimated lifetime risk of ovarian cancer ≥10%, who had completed childbearing, were eligible for RRSO. Uptake and timing of RRSO were analyzed. Influence of personal medical history and family history on RRSO decision making, were evaluated with logistic regression. The study population consisted of 218 women (45.0% BRCA1 mutation carrier, 28.0% BRCA2 mutation carrier, 27.0% with familial susceptibility) with 87.2% RRSO uptake. The median age at RRSO was 44.5 (range 28-73) years. Of the women undergoing RRSO, 78.3% needed ≤3 consultations to reach this decision. Multivariable analysis showed a significant difference in RRSO uptake for women with a history of RRM [OR 3.66 95% CI (1.12-11.98)], but no significant difference in women with a history of breast cancer [OR 1.38 95% CI (0.50-3.79)], nor with a family history of ovarian and/or breast cancer [OR 1.10 95% CI (0.44-2.76)]. We conclude that RRSO counseling, without the alternative of screening, is effective. The uptake is increased in women with a history of RRM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica E van der Aa
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jacob P Hoogendam
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Els S F Butter
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Margreet G E M Ausems
- Department of Medical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - René H M Verheijen
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald P Zweemer
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID, Vrachnis N. Primary peritoneal cancer in BRCA carriers after prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2016; 17:73-6. [PMID: 27403072 DOI: 10.5152/jtgga.2016.15223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2015] [Accepted: 04/05/2016] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The presence of deleterious mutations in breast cancer (BRCA)-1 or BRCA-2 gene has a decisive influence on the development of various types of neoplasms, such as breast, ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers. Primary peritoneal cancer is an aggressive malignancy which, due to the absence of a specific screening test, cannot be diagnosed in its early stages. As a risk-reducing option, prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and mastectomy are often proposed in BRCA gene carriers. The effectiveness of a preventive surgical treatment is, however, unclear in the development of peritoneal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS An extensive electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. RESULTS The total number of patients who underwent prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was 1,830, of whom 28 presented with peritoneal cancer (1.53%). The age of the included patients ranged from 48 to 61 years. BRCA-1 was present in 9 out of 28 patients and BRCA-2 in 2 patients, while the type of BRCA was unclear in 17 patients. Salpingo-oophorectomy was performed in 23 out of 28 patients, while oophorectomy was carried out in 5 patients. The interval from initial risk-reducing surgical treatment to the presentation of peritoneal cancer ranged from 12 to 84 months. CONCLUSION Modification of the follow-up guidelines and increase in healthcare providers' awareness may reduce the risk of peritoneal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christos Iavazzo
- Gynaecological Oncology Department, Christie Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ioannis D Gkegkes
- First Department of Surgery, General Hospital of Attica "KAT", Athens, Greece
| | - Nikolaos Vrachnis
- Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Athens Medical School, Aretaieio Hospital, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Vos JR, Mourits MJ, Teixeira N, Jansen L, Oosterwijk JC, de Bock GH. Inverse birth cohort effects in ovarian cancer: Increasing risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and decreasing risk in the general population. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 140:289-94. [PMID: 26631606 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2015] [Revised: 11/23/2015] [Accepted: 11/25/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE BRCA1/2 carriers are at increased risk of ovarian cancer, and some reports suggest an increasing risk in more recent birth cohorts. In contrast, decreasing incidences have been observed in the general population. The aim was to assess the birth cohort effect on ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers relative to their background general population. METHODS Data on ovarian cancer incidence was collected for a cohort of 1050 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ascertained by our regional clinic and retrieved from the general Dutch population cancer registry. Birth cohorts were categorized as pre-1935, 1935-1953, post-1953. Birth cohort effects on the ovarian cancer risk were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) in BRCA1/2 carriers and Poisson rate ratios in the general population. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to compare populations. HRs were adjusted for mutation position and family history. RESULTS Compared to the pre-1935 cohort, BRCA1 carriers in the 1935-1953 and post-1953 cohorts had an increased ovarian cancer risk of HRadjusted 1.54 (95% CI 1.11-2.14) and 2.40 (95% CI 1.56-3.69), respectively. BRCA2 carriers in the 1935-1953 cohort had an HRadjusted of 3.01 (95% CI 1.47-6.13). The SIRs for the 1935-1953 and post-1953 cohorts were 1.7 and 2.7, respectively, for the BRCA1 carriers and 1.6 times and 2.4 times, respectively, for BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSIONS Mutation carriers, particularly BRCA1 carriers, born in the most recent cohorts, have the highest additional ovarian cancer risk as compared to the general population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janet R Vos
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Marian J Mourits
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Natalia Teixeira
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Liesbeth Jansen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Jan C Oosterwijk
- Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Geertruida H de Bock
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Harmsen MG, Arts-de Jong M, Hoogerbrugge N, Maas AHEM, Prins JB, Bulten J, Teerenstra S, Adang EMM, Piek JMJ, van Doorn HC, van Beurden M, Mourits MJE, Zweemer RP, Gaarenstroom KN, Slangen BFM, Vos MC, van Lonkhuijzen LRCW, Massuger LFAG, Hermens RPMG, de Hullu JA. Early salpingectomy (TUbectomy) with delayed oophorectomy to improve quality of life as alternative for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (TUBA study): a prospective non-randomised multicentre study. BMC Cancer 2015; 15:593. [PMID: 26286255 PMCID: PMC4541725 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1597-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2015] [Accepted: 08/11/2015] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) around the age of 40 is currently recommended to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. This procedure decreases the elevated ovarian cancer risk by 80–96 % but it initiates premature menopause as well. The latter is associated with short-term and long-term morbidity, potentially affecting quality of life (QoL). Based on recent insights into the Fallopian tube as possible site of origin of serous ovarian carcinomas, an alternative preventive strategy has been put forward: early risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS) and delayed oophorectomy (RRO). However, efficacy and safety of this alternative strategy have to be investigated. Methods A multicentre non-randomised trial in 11 Dutch centres for hereditary cancer will be conducted. Eligible patients are premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers after completing childbearing without (a history of) ovarian carcinoma. Participants choose between standard RRSO at age 35–40 (BRCA1) or 40–45 (BRCA2) and the alternative strategy (RRS upon completion of childbearing and RRO at age 40–45 (BRCA1) or 45–50 (BRCA2)). Women who opt for RRS but do not want to postpone RRO beyond the currently recommended age are included as well. Primary outcome measure is menopause-related QoL. Secondary outcome measures are ovarian/breast cancer incidence, surgery-related morbidity, histopathology, cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, and cost-effectiveness. Mixed model data analysis will be performed. Discussion The exact role of the Fallopian tube in ovarian carcinogenesis is still unclear. It is not expected that further fundamental research will elucidate this role in the near future. Therefore, this clinical trial is essential to investigate RRS with delayed RRO as alternative risk-reducing strategy in order to improve QoL. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02321228)
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marline G Harmsen
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Marieke Arts-de Jong
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Nicoline Hoogerbrugge
- Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Angela H E M Maas
- Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Judith B Prins
- Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Johan Bulten
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Steven Teerenstra
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Eddy M M Adang
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Jurgen M J Piek
- Gynaecologic Oncologic Center South location Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Dr. Deelenlaan 5, 5042 AD, Tilburg, The Netherlands. .,Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
| | - Helena C van Doorn
- Department of Gynaecology, Erasmus MC Cancer Clinic, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Marc van Beurden
- Center for Gynaecological Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Marian J E Mourits
- Department of Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Ronald P Zweemer
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Centre, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Katja N Gaarenstroom
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Brigitte F M Slangen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - M Caroline Vos
- Gynaecologic Oncologic Center South, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
| | - Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen
- Center for Gynaecological Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Leon F A G Massuger
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Rosella P M G Hermens
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Joanne A de Hullu
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Incidental serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and early invasive serous carcinoma in the nonprophylactic setting: analysis of a case series. Am J Surg Pathol 2015; 39:442-53. [PMID: 25517955 DOI: 10.1097/pas.0000000000000352] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
A precursor for invasive ovarian/pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma, termed serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC), has been identified and characterized through careful analysis of the fallopian tubes in both prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy specimens obtained from women with either a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer or germline mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and in cases of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma. Data on incidental STICs and clinically occult microscopic invasive high-grade serous carcinomas are limited. We analyzed the clinicopathologic features of 22 cases, including 15 pure STICs and 7 STICs associated with microscopic invasive high-grade serous carcinomas, identified incidentally in fallopian tubes removed for nonprophylactic indications. Patient age ranged from 39 to 79 years (mean: 62.7; median: 61), with only 1 patient under the age of 50. No patients were known to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Of the 12 pure STICs for which the location in the fallopian tube could be established, 9 were in the fimbriated portion, 1 was at the junction of the fimbria and infundibulum, and 2 were in the nonfimbriated tube. Of the 7 STICs with associated invasive high-grade serous carcinoma, 3 were located in the fimbriated portion, 2 were at the junction of the fimbria and infundibulum, and 2 were in the nonfimbriated tube. The invasive components were in the fallopian tube in 6 cases, 4 in subepithelial stroma of tubal mucosa, and 2 as an intramucosal (exophytic) luminal lesion without invasion of underlying subepithelial stroma (size range: 1 to 4 mm). The remaining case had a microscopic focus of high-grade serous carcinoma within the ipsilateral ovary (1.3 mm cortical focus) identified only on deeper sections, without an associated invasive component in the fallopian tube. The preferential finding of atypical epithelium with the cytologic features of high-grade serous carcinoma, namely STIC, in the fallopian tubes rather than the ovaries as an incidental (clinically occult) microscopic lesion in the absence of widespread pelvic carcinoma provides further evidence that STIC is the earliest form of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma and that the fallopian tube is the site of origin. This study demonstrates the potential for complete examination of the fallopian tubes and ovaries to identify STICs and early invasive serous carcinomas that might be more amenable to the earliest intervention and potential cure.
Collapse
|
15
|
Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Seynaeve C, van Asperen CJ, Ausems MGEM, Collée JM, van Doorn HC, Gomez Garcia EB, Kets CM, van Leeuwen FE, Meijers-Heijboer HEJ, Mourits MJE, van Os TAM, Vasen HFA, Verhoef S, Rookus MA, Hooning MJ. Breast cancer risk after salpingo-oophorectomy in healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: revisiting the evidence for risk reduction. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv033. [PMID: 25788320 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 133] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous studies have reported a breast cancer (BC) risk reduction of approximately 50% after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but may have been subject to several types of bias. The purpose of this nationwide cohort study was to assess potential bias in the estimated BC risk reduction after RRSO. METHODS We selected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers from an ongoing nationwide cohort study on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON). First, we replicated the analytical methods as previously applied in four major studies on BC risk after RRSO. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios and conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios. Secondly, we analyzed the data in a revised design in order to further minimize bias using an extended Cox model with RRSO as a time-dependent variable to calculate the hazard ratio. The most important differences between our approach and those of previous studies were the requirement of no history of cancer at the date of DNA diagnosis and the inclusion of person-time preceding RRSO. RESULTS Applying the four previously described analytical methods and the data of 551 to 934 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a median follow-up of 2.7 to 4.6 years, the odds ratio was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 1.08), and the hazard ratios were 0.36 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.53), 0.62 (95% CI = 0.39 to 0.99), and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.71), being similar to earlier findings. For the revised analysis, we included 822 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. After a median follow-up period of 3.2 years, we obtained a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% CI = 0.67 to 1.77). CONCLUSION In previous studies, BC risk reduction after RRSO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers may have been overestimated because of bias. Using a design that maximally eliminated bias, we found no evidence for a protective effect.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - C Seynaeve
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - C J van Asperen
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - M G E M Ausems
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - J M Collée
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - H C van Doorn
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - E B Gomez Garcia
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - C M Kets
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - F E van Leeuwen
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - H E J Meijers-Heijboer
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - M J E Mourits
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - T A M van Os
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - H F A Vasen
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - S Verhoef
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - M A Rookus
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | - M J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology (BAMHG, CS, MJH), Department of Clinical Genetics (JMC), and Department of Gynecology (HCvD), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University MC, Leiden, the Netherlands (CJvA); Department of Clinical Genetics, University MC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MGEMA); Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University MC, Maastricht, the Netherlands (EBGG); Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen MC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CMK); Department of Epidemiology (FEvL, MAR), and Department of Clinical Genetics (SV), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, VU University MC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMH); Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (HEJMJ, TAMvO); Department of Gynecology, University MC Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (MJEM); Foundation for Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands (HFAV)
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Sherman ME, Piedmonte M, Mai PL, Ioffe OB, Ronnett BM, Van Le L, Ivanov I, Bell MC, Blank SV, DiSilvestro P, Hamilton CA, Tewari KS, Wakeley K, Kauff ND, Yamada SD, Rodriguez G, Skates SJ, Alberts DS, Walker JL, Minasian L, Lu K, Greene MH. Pathologic findings at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: primary results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Trial GOG-0199. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:3275-83. [PMID: 25199754 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.54.1987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) lowers mortality from ovarian/tubal and breast cancers among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Uncertainties persist regarding potential benefits of RRSO among high-risk noncarriers, optimal surgical age, and anatomic origin of clinically occult cancers detected at surgery. To address these topics, we analyzed surgical treatment arm results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol-0199 (GOG-0199), the National Ovarian Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Study. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS This analysis included asymptomatic high-risk women age ≥ 30 years who elected RRSO at enrollment. Women provided risk factor data and underwent preoperative cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) serum testing and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU). RRSO specimens were processed according to a standardized tissue processing protocol and underwent central pathology panel review. Research-based BRCA1/2 mutation testing was performed when a participant's mutation status was unknown at enrollment. Relationships between participant characteristics and diagnostic findings were assessed using univariable statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Invasive or intraepithelial ovarian/tubal/peritoneal neoplasms were detected in 25 (2.6%) of 966 RRSOs (BRCA1 mutation carriers, 4.6%; BRCA2 carriers, 3.5%; and noncarriers, 0.5%; P < .001). In multivariable models, positive BRCA1/2 mutation status (P = .0056), postmenopausal status (P = .0023), and abnormal CA-125 levels and/or TVU examinations (P < .001) were associated with detection of clinically occult neoplasms at RRSO. For 387 women with negative BRCA1/2 mutation testing and normal CA-125 levels, findings at RRSO were benign. CONCLUSION Clinically occult cancer was detected among 2.6% of high-risk women undergoing RRSO. BRCA1/2 mutation, postmenopausal status, and abnormal preoperative CA-125 and/or TVU were associated with cancer detection at RRSO. These data can inform management decisions among women at high risk of ovarian/tubal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark E Sherman
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Marion Piedmonte
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Phuong L Mai
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Olga B Ioffe
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Brigitte M Ronnett
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Linda Van Le
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Iouri Ivanov
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Maria C Bell
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Stephanie V Blank
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Paul DiSilvestro
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Chad A Hamilton
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Krishnansu S Tewari
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Katie Wakeley
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Noah D Kauff
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - S Diane Yamada
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gustavo Rodriguez
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Steven J Skates
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David S Alberts
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Joan L Walker
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lori Minasian
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Karen Lu
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Mark H Greene
- Mark E. Sherman, Phuong L. Mai, Lori Minasian, and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Rockville; Olga B. Ioffe, University of Maryland Medical Center; Brigitte M. Ronnett, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; Chad A. Hamilton, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Marion Piedmonte, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Stephanie V. Blank, New York University School of Medicine; Noah D. Kauff, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York, NY; Linda Van Le, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Iouri Ivanov, Columbus Cancer Council, Columbus, OH; Maria C. Bell, Sanford University of South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux Falls, SD; Paul DiSilvestro, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; Krishnansu S. Tewari, University of California Medical Center Irvine, Orange, CA; Katie Wakeley, Tufts University; Steven J. Skates, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; S. Diane Yamada, University of Chicago, Chicago; Gustavo Rodriguez, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL; David S. Alberts, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Joan L. Walker, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and Karen Lu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gadducci A, Sergiampietri C, Tana R. Alternatives to risk-reducing surgery for ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 2014; 24 Suppl 8:viii47-viii53. [PMID: 24131970 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have an 18%-60% and 11%-27% lifetime risk of developing ovarian carcinoma, respectively. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy reduces the risk of this malignancy by up to 96%. Gynecological screening programs with periodical trans-vaginal ultrasound and serum CA125 assay have been widely used in women at hereditary high risk of ovarian carcinoma, but clinical results have been conflicting. These surveillance protocols have often fallen short of expectations because of the advanced stage of ovarian carcinoma in the identified screened women. Several investigations have been addressed to the detection of additional tumor markers able to generate more reliable screening tools. The combined serum assay of leptin, prolactin, osteopontin, CA125, macrophage inhibiting factor and insulin-like growth factor-II appears to have a significant better diagnostic reliability compared with serum CA125 alone in discriminating healthy individuals from ovarian carcinoma patients, and therefore, it could have a role in the screening of women at high risk for this malignancy. As far as chemoprevention is concerned, oral contraceptives significantly reduce the ovarian carcinoma risk also in BRCA mutation carriers, whereas the efficacy of fenretinide is still under investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Gadducci
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Powell CB. Risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for BRCA mutation carriers: Twenty years later. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132:261-3. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2013] [Accepted: 07/09/2013] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
19
|
Phillips KA, Milne RL, Rookus MA, Daly MB, Antoniou AC, Peock S, Frost D, Easton DF, Ellis S, Friedlander ML, Buys SS, Andrieu N, Noguès C, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Bonadona V, Pujol P, McLachlan SA, John EM, Hooning MJ, Seynaeve C, Tollenaar RAEM, Goldgar DE, Terry MB, Caldes T, Weideman PC, Andrulis IL, Singer CF, Birch K, Simard J, Southey MC, Olsson HL, Jakubowska A, Olah E, Gerdes AM, Foretova L, Hopper JL. Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:3091-9. [PMID: 23918944 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.47.8313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 123] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine whether adjuvant tamoxifen treatment for breast cancer (BC) is associated with reduced contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS Analysis of pooled observational cohort data, self-reported at enrollment and at follow-up from the International BRCA1, and BRCA2 Carrier Cohort Study, Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, and Breast Cancer Family Registry. Eligible women were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers diagnosed with unilateral BC since 1970 and no other invasive cancer or tamoxifen use before first BC. Hazard ratios (HRs) for CBC associated with tamoxifen use were estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for year and age of diagnosis, country, and bilateral oophorectomy and censoring at contralateral mastectomy, death, or loss to follow-up. RESULTS Of 1,583 BRCA1 and 881 BRCA2 mutation carriers, 383 (24%) and 454 (52%), respectively, took tamoxifen after first BC diagnosis. There were 520 CBCs over 20,104 person-years of observation. The adjusted HR estimates were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.55) and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.50) for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. After left truncating at recruitment to the cohort, adjusted HR estimates were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.13) and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.22 to 1.05) based on 657 BRCA1 and 426 BRCA2 mutation carriers with 100 CBCs over 4,392 person-years of prospective follow-up. HRs did not differ by estrogen receptor status of the first BC (missing for 56% of cases). CONCLUSION This study provides evidence that tamoxifen use is associated with a reduction in CBC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further follow-up of these cohorts will provide increased statistical power for future prospective analyses.
Collapse
|
20
|
|
21
|
Reitsma W, Mourits MJE, de Bock GH, Hollema H. Endometrium is not the primary site of origin of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Mod Pathol 2013; 26:572-8. [PMID: 23080033 DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma has been proposed to be a potential precursor lesion of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma. If true, an increased incidence of uterine papillary serous carcinomas would be expected in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, who are at high-risk of developing pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma. This study explored particularly the occurrence of uterine papillary serous carcinoma, as well as other endometrial cancers, following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation attending a tertiary multidisciplinary clinic. A consecutive series of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy without hysterectomy at the University Medical Center Groningen from January 1996 until March 2012 were followed prospectively. They were crossed with the histopathology list of endometrial cancer diagnoses reported by the Dutch nationwide pathology database PALGA. To assess the risk of endometrial cancer, a standardized incidence ratio was calculated comparing the observed with the expected number of endometrial cancer cases. Overall, 201 BRCA1 and 144 BRCA2 mutation carriers at a median age of 50 years (range, 32-78) were analyzed. After a median follow-up period of 6 years, after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, two cases of endometrial cancer were diagnosed, whereas the expected number was 0.94 cases (standardized incidence ratio 2.13; 95% confidence interval 0.24-7.69; P=0.27). Both endometrial cancer cases were of the endometrioid histological subtype. We showed that the incidence of endometrial cancer following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, especially uterine papillary serous carcinoma, in women at high-risk of developing pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma is not increased. On the basis of our data, the hypothesis of serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma being an important precursor lesion of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma seems unlikely. There is no need to add a prophylactic hysterectomy to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Welmoed Reitsma
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Prophylactic Salpingectomy and Delayed Oophorectomy as an Alternative for BRCA Mutation Carriers. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121:14-24. [DOI: 10.1097/aog.0b013e3182783c2f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 125] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
|
23
|
Support of the 'fallopian tube hypothesis' in a prospective series of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy specimens. Eur J Cancer 2012; 49:132-41. [PMID: 22921157 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.07.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 78] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2012] [Revised: 07/07/2012] [Accepted: 07/26/2012] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the prevalence, localisation and type of occult (non)invasive cancer in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) specimens in BRCA-mutation carriers and high-risk women from BRCA-negative families. METHODS A consecutive series of RRSO specimens of asymptomatic, screen-negative high-risk women were prospectively collected in our tertiary multidisciplinary cancer clinic from January 2000 until March 2012. All high-risk women in this study underwent genetic testing on BRCA-mutations. The surgico-pathological protocol comprised complete resection of ovaries and fallopian tubes, transverse sectioning at 2-3 mm (sectioning and extensively examining the fimbrial end [SEE-FIM] protocol from 2006) and double independent pathology review of morphologically deviant sections. RESULTS Three hundred and sixty RRSOs were performed in 188 BRCA1-carriers, 115 BRCA2-carriers and 57 BRCA-negative women at a median age of 44.0 years. Four occult invasive cancers were detected in BRCA-carriers (1.3%, 95%-confidence interval (CI) 0.03-2.61), all in BRCA1-carriers >40 years of age. All cancers, of which two tubal and two ovarian cancers, were FIGO-stage I/II. Three non-invasive serous intraepithelial carcinomas (STICs) were detected in BRCA-carriers (1.0%, 95%-CI 0.00-2.10). In BRCA-negative women one STIC was found (1.8%, 95%-CI 0.00-5.16), however she carried an unclassified variant in BRCA2. Total follow-up after RRSO was 1691 woman-years, in which one BRCA1-carrier developed peritoneal cancer (0.3%, 95%-CI 0.00-0.82). CONCLUSIONS A low prevalence of occult invasive cancer (1.1%) was found in young asymptomatic, screen-negative women at increased ovarian cancer risk undergoing RRSO. This study adds to the advice to perform RRSO in BRCA1-carriers before the age of 40. Our findings support the hypothesis of the fallopian tube as the primary site of origin of pelvic high-grade serous cancer.
Collapse
|
24
|
Bijron JG, Bol GM, Verheijen RH, van Diest PJ. Epigenetic biomarkers in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2012; 6:421-38. [PMID: 23480807 DOI: 10.1517/17530059.2012.702105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Current diagnostic methods for ovarian cancer have limited performance. Recent advances within the field of epigenetics have shifted the clinical implementation of epigenetic biomarkers as a diagnostic approach from a dream for the future to a present-day consideration. Patients could potentially benefit greatly from this novel diagnostic approach. AREAS COVERED Epigenetic mechanisms in cancer are discussed, with a focus on potential diagnostic epigenetic biomarkers in ovarian cancer in tissue and body fluids. A literature search was undertaken (on 22-09-2011) for these subjects using the search syntax ((((((((((((((("ovarian") OR "ovary") OR "ovarian cancer") OR "ovarian cancers") OR "cancer of the ovary") OR "tumour of the ovary") OR "ovarian tumor") OR "ovarian tumors") OR "ovarian tumour") OR "ovarian tumours") OR "ovarian neoplasm") OR "ovarian neoplasms" OR "ovarian carcinoma") OR "ovarian carcinomas") OR "carcinoma of the ovary")) AND ((((((((("epigenetics") OR "epigenetic") OR "epigenome") OR "methylation") OR "hypermethylation") OR "chromatin modification") OR "histone") OR "histones") OR "acetylation") EXPERT OPINION To date no single epigenetic biomarker is able to accurately detect early ovarian cancer in either tissue or body fluids. A panel of epigenetic biomarkers based on aberrant DNA methylation in body fluids, especially blood, has the best chance of being implemented in clinical practice, as it is semi-invasive. However, progression toward clinical use is hampered by the lack of detection techniques combining high throughput and accuracy with low cost, by difficulties in establishing reliable reference values and by the heterogeneous nature of ovarian cancer. Until addressed, implementation as a diagnostic measure complimenting current techniques in select cases seems a far way to go, and implementation as a primary screening tool is yet even farther away.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan G Bijron
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Pathology , 3508 GA Utrecht , The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Manchanda R, Burnell M, Abdelraheim A, Johnson M, Sharma A, Benjamin E, Brunell C, Saridogan E, Gessler S, Oram D, Side L, Rosenthal AN, Jacobs I, Menon U. Factors influencing uptake and timing of risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women at risk of familial ovarian cancer: a competing risk time to event analysis. BJOG 2012; 119:527-36. [PMID: 22260402 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03257.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Manchanda
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women's Health, UCL, London, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA mutation carriers: experience with a consecutive series of 111 patients using a standardized surgical-pathological protocol. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21:846-51. [PMID: 21670699 DOI: 10.1097/igc.0b013e31821bc7e3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 126] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Women carriers of BRCA mutations often have occult malignancy found at the time of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). We report outcomes in 111 consecutive BRCA-positive women who had RRSO using a rigorous surgical-pathological protocol from 1996 to 2008. METHOD We identified risk factors associated with finding an occult malignancy at RRSO with outcomes followed for a median of 61 months. RESULTS A total of 111 BRCA carriers elected RRSO, 10 patients [9.1%] had 14 sites of occult neoplasia. Two patients had invasive serous fallopian tube carcinoma (TSC) only, 1 patient had invasive serous ovarian carcinoma (OSC) only, 5 patients had tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (TIC) only, and 2 patients had multifocal lesions of the ovary (OSC) and TIC. Occult ovarian carcinomas were only detected in BRCA1 patients, and all BRCA2 carcinomas involved only the fallopian tube. The odds of finding occult carcinoma is 4 times greater (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-20.7) in women older than 50 than in younger ones (P=0.023). A history of invasive breast cancer was associated with a reduced risk of occult carcinoma (odds ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.85). In median follow-up of 5 years, recurrence rate after detection of an occult carcinoma was 10% and the risk for primary peritoneal carcinoma was less than 1%. CONCLUSION A rigorous surgical protocol with meticulous pathologic review at RRSO yielded an overall detection rate of 9.1% for occult gynecological carcinoma in BRCA mutation carriers followed by a multidisciplinary team at a single institution. Primary peritoneal carcinoma after RRSO is rare.
Collapse
|
27
|
Nobbenhuis MA, Bancroft E, Moskovic E, Lennard F, Pharoah P, Jacobs I, Ward A, Barton DP, Ind TE, Shepherd JH, Bridges JE, Gore M, Haracopos C, Shanley S, Ardern-Jones A, Thomas S, Eeles R. Screening for ovarian cancer in women with varying levels of risk, using annual tests, results in high recall for repeat screening tests. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2011; 9:11. [PMID: 22112691 PMCID: PMC3231989 DOI: 10.1186/1897-4287-9-11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2011] [Accepted: 11/23/2011] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We assessed ovarian cancer screening outcomes in women with a positive family history of ovarian cancer divided into a low-, moderate- or high-risk group for development of ovarian cancer. Methods 545 women with a positive family history of ovarian cancer referred to the Ovarian Screening Service at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London from January 2000- December 2008 were included. They were stratified into three risk-groups according to family history (high-, moderate- and low-risk) of developing ovarian cancer and offered annual serum CA 125 and transvaginal ultrasound screening. The high-risk group was offered genetic testing. Results The median age at entry was 44 years. The number of women in the high, moderate and low-risk groups was 397, 112, and 36, respectively. During 2266 women years of follow-up two ovarian cancer cases were found: one advanced stage at her fourth annual screening, and one early stage at prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). Prophylactic BSO was performed in 138 women (25.3%). Forty-three women had an abnormal CA125, resulting in 59 repeat tests. The re-call rate in the high, moderate and low-risk group was 14%, 3% and 6%. Equivocal transvaginal ultrasound results required 108 recalls in 71 women. The re-call rate in the high, moderate, and low-risk group was 25%, 6% and 17%. Conclusion No early stage ovarian cancer was picked up at annual screening and a significant number of re-calls for repeat screening tests was identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marielle Ae Nobbenhuis
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, The Institute of Cancer Research & The Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, Cotswold Road and Fulham Road, SW3 6JJ, London, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Manchanda R, Abdelraheim A, Johnson M, Rosenthal AN, Benjamin E, Brunell C, Burnell M, Side L, Gessler S, Saridogan E, Oram D, Jacobs I, Menon U. Outcome of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA carriers and women of unknown mutation status. BJOG 2011; 118:814-24. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02920.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 102] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
29
|
Short-term surgical outcome and safety of risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Maturitas 2010; 66:310-4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.03.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2010] [Revised: 03/21/2010] [Accepted: 03/23/2010] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
30
|
Precursor lesions of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: morphological and molecular characteristics. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 2010; 2010:126295. [PMID: 20445756 PMCID: PMC2860809 DOI: 10.1155/2010/126295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2009] [Accepted: 02/14/2010] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
The lack of proven screening tools for early detection and the high mortality of ovarian serous carcinoma (OSC), particularly high grade, have focused attention on identifying putative precursor lesions with distinct morphological and molecular characteristics. The finding of occult invasive and intraepithelial fallopian tube carcinomas in prophylactically removed specimens from asymptomatic high-risk BRCA 1/2-mutation carriers supports the notion of an origin for OSC in the fallopian tube. The intraepithelial carcinomas have been referred to as serous intraepithelial carcinomas (STICs) but our own findings (unpublished data) and recent reports have drawn attention to a spectrum of changes that fall short of STICs that we have designated serous tubal intraepithelial lesions (STILs).
Collapse
|
31
|
Cass I, Walts A, Karlan BY. Does risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy leave behind residual tube? Gynecol Oncol 2010; 117:27-31. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.12.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2009] [Revised: 12/10/2009] [Accepted: 12/14/2009] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
32
|
Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Garber JE, Isaacs C, Matloff E, Eeles R, Evans DG, Rubinstein W, Singer CF, Rubin S, Lynch HT, Daly MB, Weitzel J, Ganz PA, Pichert G, Olopade OI, Tomlinson G, Tung N, Blum JL, Couch F, Rebbeck TR. Occult ovarian cancers identified at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 124:195-203. [PMID: 20180014 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-0799-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2010] [Accepted: 02/10/2010] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is widely used for cancer risk reduction in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers. Occult ovarian/fallopian tube cancers (OOC) detected at the time of RRSO have been reported in several studies with wide variability in reported prevalence. We estimated the prevalence of OOC in a prospective cohort of 647 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers from 18 centers (PROSE consortium) who underwent RRSO between 2001 and 2008. OOC was detected in 16 of 647 women (2.5%). The mean age at RRSO was 51.7 in those with OOC versus 46.6 in those without OOC (P = 0.017). Twelve of the 16 OOCs (75%) were diagnosed in women with BRCA1 mutations. Thirty-eight percent of women with OOC had stage 1 cancer versus none of the women in the PROSE database diagnosed with ovarian cancer outside of screening. Among 385 women (60%) in whom pathology reports were available for central review, 246 (64%) RRSOs were performed at participating PROSE centers while 139 (36%) were performed at local sites. Ovarian and fallopian tube tissues removed at major genetics referral centers were significantly more likely to have been examined in toto compared to specimens obtained at non-referral centers (75% vs. 30%, P < 0.001). Our results confirm that OOC may be found at the time of RRSO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and suggest that OOC are of a more favorable stage than cancers found outside RRSO. An unacceptably high proportion of pathologic examinations did not adequately examine ovaries and fallopian tubes obtained at RRSO.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan M Domchek
- Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3W Perelman Center, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Multistep level sections to detect occult fallopian tube carcinoma in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies from women with BRCA mutations: implications for defining an optimal specimen dissection protocol. Am J Surg Pathol 2009; 33:1878-85. [PMID: 19898224 DOI: 10.1097/pas.0b013e3181bc6059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) significantly lowers the incidence of ovarian, tubal, peritoneal, and breast cancer in women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. A minority of RRSO specimens from these women will contain occult early-stage carcinoma. Most occult cancer is localized in the fallopian tube fimbriae and is as small as 1 mm in size. Pathologic detection is dependent on thoroughness of tissue examination. Recommended protocols to maximize tumor detection emphasize the role of thinly slicing the tubes and ovaries and embedding the entire specimen for microscopic examination. Additional multistep level sections of tubal fimbriae tissue blocks could theoretically increase detection of occult tubal carcinoma but the value of level sections has not been formally evaluated. This study tests the diagnostic utility of multistep level sections in RRSO specimens from 102 women with BRCA germline mutations. The original diagnoses were based on a single section from each block of thinly sliced (2 to 3 mm intervals) tissues of the entire RRSO specimen. Three multistep level sections were retrospectively obtained from each block containing tubal fimbriae. Clinically occult carcinoma ranging in size from 1 to 13 mm was initially detected in 11 of 102 women (5 in tubal fimbriae only, 1 in tubal isthmus only, 2 in fimbriae and ovary, and 3 in ovary only). Diagnoses in the original fimbrial slides and their level sections were concordant in all cases. All tubal cancers were detected in both the original sections and in the multistep level sections. None of the tubal carcinomas that were noninvasive on the original slides showed invasive growth on additional level sections. No tubal carcinoma was identified in the level sections of any case originally classified as benign. Clinical follow-up among women with benign RRSO findings revealed that 2 women subsequently developed peritoneal carcinomatosis at 22 and 62 months postoperatively. Retrospective exhaustive multistep level sectioning of all remaining tubal and ovarian blocks from both these women confirmed the original benign diagnosis in 1 woman but in the other woman, the deepest levels of 1 ovarian block revealed a single 1-mm nodule of cancer at the base of an ovarian surface epithelial invagination. This specimen was one of the first RRSO cases in our experience and on review of the original report, this ovary was not dissected into multiple slices along its short axis but was only bivalved along its long axis. We propose that there does not seem to be any diagnostic value in automatically performing multistep deeper level sections of RRSO specimens if the tissue is sectioned appropriately and if the specimen is sliced at intervals that are no more than 3 mm thick. Guidelines for evaluation of RRSO specimens should emphasize the use of an optimal dissection protocol and the importance of thin tissue slice intervals.
Collapse
|
34
|
Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Lynch JF, Ghate S, Narod SA, Gong G. Family information service participation increases the rates of mutation testing among members of families with BRCA1/2 mutations. Breast J 2009; 15 Suppl 1:S20-4. [PMID: 19775326 DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00807.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Some members of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) families may not participate in BRCA testing to determine their mutation status in part because they are unaware of their cancer risk and the availability of BRCA testing. Participation in a family information service (FIS), of which we have provided more than 100 sessions during the past 30 years, has been seen to effectively allow family members to be educated regarding their cancer genetic risk and potential benefits from cancer control measures such as mutation testing. However, the effect of the FIS on the rate of mutation testing has not been studied. One thousand five hundred seventy-four eligible (>18-year old, at a 25% or higher pedigree risk) members from 60 extended HBOC families with BRCA1/2 mutations were invited to attend a FIS to learn about their risk and undergo genetic testing. The rates of mutation testing were compared between those who had attended an FIS, and those who had not with chi-squared test and logistic regression analysis. Seventy five percent (334/444) of FIS attendees had undergone mutation testing following or during an FIS which was significantly higher than the 33.8% (382/1130) rate among nonattendees (p < 0.0001). Logistic regression analysis showed that FIS attendance, breast-ovarian cancer history, gender, and age were significant variables for undertaking a mutation test. FIS attendance significantly increased the rate of mutation testing among high-risk family members.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henry T Lynch
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska 68178, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Mourits M, de Bock G. Managing hereditary ovarian cancer. Maturitas 2009; 64:172-6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.09.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2009] [Revised: 09/01/2009] [Accepted: 09/01/2009] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
36
|
Ovarian Pathology in Risk-reducing Salpingo-oophorectomies From Women With BRCA Mutations, Emphasizing the Differential Diagnosis of Occult Primary and Metastatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2009; 33:1125-36. [DOI: 10.1097/pas.0b013e31819e986a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
37
|
Brown PO, Palmer C. The preclinical natural history of serous ovarian cancer: defining the target for early detection. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000114. [PMID: 19636370 PMCID: PMC2711307 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 165] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2008] [Accepted: 06/17/2009] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ovarian cancer kills approximately 15,000 women in the United States every year, and more than 140,000 women worldwide. Most deaths from ovarian cancer are caused by tumors of the serous histological type, which are rarely diagnosed before the cancer has spread. Rational design of a potentially life-saving early detection and intervention strategy requires understanding the lesions we must detect in order to prevent lethal progression. Little is known about the natural history of lethal serous ovarian cancers before they become clinically apparent. We can learn about this occult period by studying the unsuspected serous cancers that are discovered in a small fraction of apparently healthy women who undergo prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO). METHODS AND FINDINGS We developed models for the growth, progression, and detection of occult serous cancers on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of published data on serous cancers discovered by PBSO in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Our analysis yielded several critical insights into the early natural history of serous ovarian cancer. First, these cancers spend on average more than 4 y as in situ, stage I, or stage II cancers and approximately 1 y as stage III or IV cancers before they become clinically apparent. Second, for most of the occult period, serous cancers are less than 1 cm in diameter, and not visible on gross examination of the ovaries and Fallopian tubes. Third, the median diameter of a serous ovarian cancer when it progresses to an advanced stage (stage III or IV) is about 3 cm. Fourth, to achieve 50% sensitivity in detecting tumors before they advance to stage III, an annual screen would need to detect tumors of 1.3 cm in diameter; 80% detection sensitivity would require detecting tumors less than 0.4 cm in diameter. Fifth, to achieve a 50% reduction in serous ovarian cancer mortality with an annual screen, a test would need to detect tumors of 0.5 cm in diameter. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis has formalized essential conditions for successful early detection of serous ovarian cancer. Although the window of opportunity for early detection of these cancers lasts for several years, developing a test sufficiently sensitive and specific to take advantage of that opportunity will be a challenge. We estimated that the tumors we would need to detect to achieve even 50% sensitivity are more than 200 times smaller than the clinically apparent serous cancers typically used to evaluate performance of candidate biomarkers; none of the biomarker assays reported to date comes close to the required level of performance. Overcoming the signal-to-noise problem inherent in detection of tiny tumors will likely require discovery of truly cancer-specific biomarkers or development of novel approaches beyond traditional blood protein biomarkers. While this study was limited to ovarian cancers of serous histological type and to those arising in BRCA1 mutation carriers specifically, we believe that the results are relevant to other hereditary serous cancers and to sporadic ovarian cancers. A similar approach could be applied to other cancers to aid in defining their early natural history and to guide rational design of an early detection strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick O Brown
- Department of Biochemistry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Sasaroli D, Coukos G, Scholler N. Beyond CA125: the coming of age of ovarian cancer biomarkers. Are we there yet? Biomark Med 2009; 3:275-288. [PMID: 19684876 DOI: 10.2217/bmm.09.21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Ovarian cancer (OC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States, despite its relatively low incidence of 50 per 100,000. Even though advances in therapy have been made, the OC fatality-to-case ratio remains exceedingly high, due to the lack of accurate tools to diagnose early-stage disease when cure is still possible. The most studied marker for OC, CA125, is only expressed by 50-60% of patients with early stage disease. Large efforts have been deployed to identify novel serum markers, yet no single marker has emerged as a serious competitor for CA125. Various groups are investing in combination approaches to increase the diagnostic value of existing markers, but many markers may still lie in under-explored areas of ovarian cancer biology, such as tumor vasculature environment and post-translational modifications (glycomics).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dimitra Sasaroli
- University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 421 Curie Boulevard, BRBII/III, PA, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Lynch HT, Casey MJ, Snyder CL, Bewtra C, Lynch JF, Butts M, Godwin AK. Hereditary ovarian carcinoma: heterogeneity, molecular genetics, pathology, and management. Mol Oncol 2009; 3:97-137. [PMID: 19383374 DOI: 10.1016/j.molonc.2009.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 135] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2009] [Revised: 02/03/2009] [Accepted: 02/06/2009] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Hereditary ovarian cancer accounts for at least 5% of the estimated 22,000 new cases of this disease during 2009. During this same time, over 15,000 will die from malignancy ascribed to ovarian origin. The bulk of these hereditary cases fits the hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome, while virtually all of the remainder will be consonant with the Lynch syndrome, disorders which are autosomal dominantly inherited. Advances in molecular genetics have led to the identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations which predispose to the hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome, and mutations in mismatch repair genes, the most common of which are MSH2 and MLH1, which predispose to Lynch syndrome. These discoveries enable relatively certain diagnosis, limited only by their variable penetrance, so that identification of mutation carriers through a comprehensive cancer family history might be possible. This paper reviews the subject of hereditary ovarian cancer, with particular attention to its molecular genetic basis, its pathology, and its phenotypic/genotypic heterogeneity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henry T Lynch
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Creighton University School of Medicine, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
van der Velde NM, Mourits MJE, Arts HJG, de Vries J, Leegte BK, Dijkhuis G, Oosterwijk JC, de Bock GH. Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers? Int J Cancer 2009; 124:919-23. [PMID: 19035463 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 98] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Women at high risk of ovarian cancer due to a genetic predisposition may opt for either surveillance or prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (pBSO). Main objective of our study was to determine the effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening in women with a BRCA1/2 mutation. We evaluated 241 consecutive women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who were enrolled in the surveillance program for hereditary ovarian cancer from September 1995 until May 2006 at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), The Netherlands. The ovarian cancer screening included annual pelvic examination, transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) and serum CA125 measurement. To evaluate the effectiveness of screening in diagnosing (early stage) ovarian cancer sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of pelvic examination, TVU and CA125 were calculated. Three ovarian cancers were detected during the surveillance period; 1 prevalent cancer, 1 interval cancer and 1 screen-detected cancer, all in an advanced stage (FIGO stage IIIc). A PPV of 20% was achieved for pelvic examination, 33% for TVU and 6% for CA125 estimation alone. The NPV were 99.4% for pelvic examination, 99.5% for TVU and 99.4% for CA125. All detected ovarian cancers were in an advanced stage, and sensitivities and positive predictive values of the screening modalities are low. Restricting the analyses to incident contacts that contained all 3 screening modalities did not substantially change the outcomes. Annual gynecological screening of women with a BRCA1/2 mutation to prevent advanced stage ovarian cancer is not effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nienke M van der Velde
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Levanon K, Crum C, Drapkin R. New insights into the pathogenesis of serous ovarian cancer and its clinical impact. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:5284-93. [PMID: 18854563 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2008.18.1107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 294] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
There are only a handful of concepts concerning cancer and carcinogenesis that are currently beyond dispute. One such dogma is the adenoma-carcinoma sequence and that a multistep accumulation of genetic alterations is required for transformation from a benign to a neoplastic tissue. The inevitable derivative of this dogma is that every invasive carcinoma is in fact a missed intraepithelial tumor, and furthermore, a late evolutionary stage in the sequence of development from a precursor lesion. Until fairly recently, high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma seemed to be one of the only known deviants of these concepts. In this article, we discuss the emergence of the fallopian tube fimbria as a field of origin for high-grade serous carcinomas and present a binary model of ovarian cancer pathogenesis that takes into consideration prior epidemiologic, morphologic, and genetic data. With the rise of the fallopian tube secretory epithelial cell as a cell of origin for high-grade pelvic serous carcinomas, the need to develop tools and model systems to characterize the biology and physiology of this cell is recognized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keren Levanon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
De Leeuw JRJ, van Vliet MJ, Ausems MGEM. Predictors of choosing life-long screening or prophylactic surgery in women at high and moderate risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Fam Cancer 2008; 7:347-59. [DOI: 10.1007/s10689-008-9189-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2007] [Accepted: 02/20/2008] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
43
|
Bermejo-Pérez MJ, Márquez-Calderón S, Llanos-Méndez A. Cancer surveillance based on imaging techniques in carriers of BRCA1/2 gene mutations: a systematic review. Br J Radiol 2008; 81:172-9. [PMID: 18208856 DOI: 10.1259/bjr/21074350] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
We have systematically reviewed the literature focusing on the performance of surveillance programmes and imaging techniques for the early diagnosis of breast and ovarian cancer in women carrying mutations in BRCA1/2 genes. A search for relevant articles published between 1996 and 2005 (inclusive) was run on Medline, Embase and other databases. Of the 749 articles retrieved, only 13 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 provided information on breast cancer surveillance, 1 on ovarian cancer surveillance and a further study addressed both cancer types. A critical appraisal of the studies was performed using a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS). The synthesis of results is qualitative. All studies on imaging techniques for the diagnosis of breast cancer indicated that screening MRI had the highest sensitivity (between 77% and 100%). Breast cancer surveillance programmes, including MRI, achieved the highest diagnostic performance (between 83% and 95%) for all women. However, it must be taken into account that biases that may affect the validity of the outcomes were seen in the evaluated studies. Also, MRI is an expensive test with a low positive predictive value and, to date, MRI screening has not been proven to reduce mortality rates in women carrying BRCA1/2 gene mutations. As a result of the scant information and low quality of the papers reviewed, no definitive conclusion could be drawn on the performance of ovarian cancer surveillance in women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations.
Collapse
|
44
|
|
45
|
Kenen RH, Shapiro PJ, Friedman S, Coyne JC. Peer-support in coping with medical uncertainty: discussion of oophorectomy and hormone replacement therapy on a web-based message board. Psychooncology 2007; 16:763-71. [PMID: 17230435 DOI: 10.1002/pon.1152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
The Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE) website is devoted to women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOC). To understand the unique health concerns and emotional support needs of these women, we examined threads on the FORCE archived message boards with relevance to the broader HBOC community. We report on a thread discussing the controversial decision to use hormone replacement therapy (HRT) following prophylactic oophorectomy (PO). We used a qualitative research inductive process involving close reading, coding and identification of recurrent patterns, relationships and processes in the data. Twenty-nine women posted 177 messages over 7 months. Two main groups of women posted: (1) Women who were BRCA+, had completed PO, and were debating or adjusting their HRT options in terms of optimizing both quality and quantity of life. (2) Women who were BRCA+, were contemplating PO, but wanted to better understand the potential physical and psychological consequences of surgical menopause before deciding. Frustrated by physicians' lack of knowledge and contradictory media articles about the long-term consequences of HRT in BRCA+ women, they sought resources, emotional support and specific experiential knowledge from each other and generated a unique sense of community and a high level of trust.
Collapse
|
46
|
Woodward ER, Sleightholme HV, Considine AM, Williamson S, McHugo JM, Cruger DG. Annual surveillance by CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian cancer in both high-risk and population risk women is ineffective. BJOG 2007; 114:1500-9. [PMID: 17903229 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01499.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of annual CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) scan as surveillance for ovarian cancer. DESIGN Retrospective audit. SETTING NHS Trust. POPULATION Three hundred and forty-one asymptomatic women enrolled for ovarian cancer screening: 179 were in a high-risk group (>10% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer), 77 in a moderate risk group (4-10% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer) and 71 in a near population risk group (<4% lifetime risk). METHODS Retrospective audit of case records, laboratory CA125 results, radiology reports, histology records and local cancer registry data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Ovarian cancers occurring in study population. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of TVU, and CA125 as a screening tool for ovarian cancer. RESULTS Four ovarian cancers and one endometrial cancer occurred. One ovarian cancer was detected at surveillance, three occurred in women who presented symptomatically between screenings. Thirty women underwent exploratory surgery because of abnormal findings at surveillance. Two women had cancer (PPV = 6.7%); one had ovarian cancer and the other endometrial cancer. Twenty-eight women (93.3%) had no malignancy. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for TVU in the whole cohort were 33.3, 85.8, 0.6 and 99.8%, respectively. For high-risk individuals, the figures for TVU were 33.3, 84.5, 1.1 and 99.6, respectively. Combining both modalities for the whole cohort, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 66.7, 82.9, 1.5 and 99.8% and 50.0, 82.8, 1.3 and 99.7%, respectively, for the high-risk group alone. CONCLUSIONS Ovarian screening by annual TVU and CA125 is inefficient at detecting early-stage ovarian cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E R Woodward
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Tong GX, Chiriboga L, Hamele-Bena D, Borczuk AC. Expression of PAX2 in papillary serous carcinoma of the ovary: immunohistochemical evidence of fallopian tube or secondary Müllerian system origin? Mod Pathol 2007; 20:856-63. [PMID: 17529925 DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3800827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 87] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
PAX2 is a urogenital developmental transcription factor expressed in the Wolffian ducts, developing kidneys, and Müllerian ducts during embryonic stage. Its function in renal development is well documented and its clinical application in the diagnosis of lesions of renal origin has been reported recently. However, information on its role in the Müllerian-derived genital tract is sparse. In this study, we investigated the expression of PAX2 in human female genital tract using immunohistochemistry. We demonstrated that PAX2 was expressed specifically in the epithelial cells of fallopian tube, endometrial and endocervical glands, but not in the stromal tissues in these areas. PAX2 was detected in secondary Müllerian structures in the ovary, such as endometriotic and endosalpingiotic glands and rete ovarii, but not in ovarian surface epithelium, surface epithelium-derived inclusion cysts, stroma, or sex-cord-derived structures such as follicles, oocytes, and corpus luteum. In addition, PAX2 was detected in 67% of ovarian papillary serous carcinomas (N=36) but rarely in peritoneal malignant mesotheliomas, with two exceptions (N=54). Interestingly, the two PAX2-positive 'peritoneal malignant mesotheliomas' were from female patients and were positive for estrogen receptor. The significance of expression of PAX2 and estrogen receptor in these cases is under investigation. Taken together, we suggest that PAX2 is a novel Müllerian-specific epithelial marker when used in proper clinical settings. Identification of PAX2 in the majority of papillary serous carcinomas of the ovary but not in the ovarian surface epithelium or epithelium-derived inclusion cysts suggests that this malignant epithelial tumor may be directly derived from the primary or secondary Müllerian epithelium in or surrounding the ovary, rather than from the surface epithelium or its derivatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guo-Xia Tong
- Department of Pathology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Chen LM, Yang KY, Little SE, Cheung MK, Caughey AB. Gynecologic cancer prevention in Lynch syndrome/hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:18-25. [PMID: 17601891 DOI: 10.1097/01.aog.0000267500.27329.85] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Women from Lynch syndrome/hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch/HNPCC) families have an increased lifetime risk of developing endometrial and ovarian cancer. This study models a comparison of management strategies for women who carry a Lynch/HNPCC mutation. METHODS A decision analytic model with three arms was designed to compare annual gynecologic examinations with annual screening (ultrasonography, endometrial biopsy, CA 125) and with hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at age 30 years The existing literature was searched for studies on the accuracy of endometrial and ovarian cancer screening using endometrial biopsy, transvaginal ultrasonography, and serum CA 125. The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database from 1988 to 2001 was used to estimate cancer mortality outcomes. RESULTS In the surgical arm, 0.0056% of women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 0.0060% of women with endometrial cancer. These numbers increased to 3.7% and 18.4% in women being screened, and 8.3% and 48.7% in women undergoing annual examinations, respectively. Surgical management led to the longest expected survival time at 79.98 years, followed by screening at 79.31 years, and annual examinations at 77.41 years. If starting at age 30 and discounting life years at 3%, surgery still leads to the greatest expected life years. When comparing prophylactic surgery with the screening option, one would need to perform 75 surgeries to save one woman's entire life. For cancer prevention, however, only 28 and 6 prophylactic surgeries would need to be performed to prevent one case of ovarian and endometrial cancer, respectively. CONCLUSION Risk-reducing hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy may be considered in women with Lynch/HNPCC to prevent gynecologic cancers and their associated morbidities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lee-may Chen
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Lu KH. Hereditary gynecologic cancers: differential diagnosis, surveillance, management and surgical prophylaxis. Fam Cancer 2007; 7:53-8. [PMID: 17636427 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-007-9144-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2007] [Accepted: 05/14/2007] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
The main cancer susceptibility syndromes that involve gynecologic cancers include Breast-Ovarian Cancer Syndrome and Lynch Syndrome/Hereditary Non-polyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome. For uterine cancer, approximately 5% of all cases are likely due to a hereditary cause and for ovarian cancer, approximately 10% are due to an inherited cause. Gynecologic oncologists play an important role in identifying women with ovarian or endometrial cancer who may have these syndromes. Personal and family history of relevant cancers assists with identification. For those women without cancer who are found to have a hereditary cancer syndrome, effective counseling in the prevention and early detection of cancers is crucial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen H Lu
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Clinical Cancer Genetics, UT M D Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Brekelmans CTM, Menke-Pluymers MBE, van Geel AN, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Bartels CCM, Tan M, Meijers-Heijboer HEJ, Klijn JGM, Seynaeve C. Prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women at risk of hereditary breast cancer: long-term experiences at the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:3335-44. [PMID: 17541692 PMCID: PMC2077910 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-007-9449-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2006] [Accepted: 04/16/2007] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women from a hereditary breast(/ovarian) cancer family have a highly increased risk of developing breast cancer (BC). Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) results in the greatest BC risk reduction. Long-term data on the efficacy and sequels of PM are scarce. METHODS From 358 high-risk women (including 236 BRCA1/2 carriers) undergoing PM between 1994 and 2004, relevant data on the occurrence of BC in relation to PM, complications in relation to breast reconstruction (BR), mutation status, age at PM and preoperative imaging examination results were extracted from the medical records, and analyzed separately for women without (unaffected, n = 177) and with a BC history (affected, n = 181). RESULTS No primary BCs occurred after PM (median follow-up 4.5 years). In one previously unaffected woman, metastatic BC was detected almost 4 years after PM (primary BC not found). Median age at PM was younger in unaffected women (P < .001), affected women more frequently were 50% risk carriers (P < .001). Unexpected (pre)malignant changes at PM were found in 3% of the patients (in 5 affected, and 5 unaffected women, respectively). In 49.6% of the women opting for BR one or more complications were registered, totaling 215 complications, leading to 153 surgical interventions (71%). Complications were mainly related to cosmetic outcome (36%) and capsular formation (24%). CONCLUSIONS The risk of developing a primary BC after PM remains low after longer follow-up. Preoperative imaging and careful histological examination is warranted because of potential unexpected (pre)malignant findings. The high complication rate after breast reconstruction mainly concerns cosmetic issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Cecile T. M. Brekelmans
- Department of Medical Oncology , Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marian B. E. Menke-Pluymers
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Albert N. van Geel
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Carina C. M. Bartels
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Murly Tan
- Department of Psychosocial Care, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanne E. J. Meijers-Heijboer
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Vrije Universiteit MC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan G. M. Klijn
- Department of Medical Oncology , Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Caroline Seynaeve
- Department of Medical Oncology , Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC—Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|