Preventing Ovarian Cancer in High-risk Women: One Surgery at a Time

Genetic Predisposition for Gynecologic Cancers

Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) are responsible for up to 10% of all cancers. At present, the majority of cancer susceptibility testing is initiated after a cancer diagnosis. There exists a significant opportunity for primary care providers including general obstetrician-gynecologists to engage in hereditary cancer risk assessment through adequate family history evaluation, initiation of genetic testing, and following the recommendations of national organizations. Identifying hereditary cancer genes may prompt primary prevention efforts such as enhanced screening, prevention, or personalized care strategies. We will review the literature regarding the approach and assessment of the most common gynecologic HCS.

Updates in gynecologic care for individuals with lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome caused by germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in DNA mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, PMS2, MSH6) or the EPCAM gene. It is estimated to affect 1 in 300 individuals and confers a lifetime risk of cancer of 10-90%, depending on the specific variant and type of cancer. Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer, but for women, endometrial cancer is more likely to be the sentinel cancer. There is also evidence that certain PVs causing Lynch syndrome confer an increased risk of ovarian cancer, while the risk of ovarian cancer in others is not well defined. Given this, it is essential for the practicing gynecologist and gynecologic oncologist to remain up to date on the latest techniques in identification and diagnosis of individuals with Lynch syndrome as well as evidence-based screening and risk reduction recommendations for those impacted. Furthermore, as the landscape of gynecologic cancer treatment shifts towards treatment based on molecular classification of tumors, knowledge of targeted therapies well-suited for mismatch repair deficient Lynch tumors will be crucial. The objective of this review is to highlight recent updates in the literature regarding identification and management of individuals with Lynch syndrome as it pertains to endometrial and ovarian cancers to allow gynecologic providers the opportunity to both prevent and identify Lynch-associated cancers earlier, thereby reducing the morbidity and mortality of the syndrome.

A Clinical Diagnostic Value Analysis of Serum CA125, CA199, and HE4 in Women with Early Ovarian Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate the value of combined detection of serum CA125, CA199, and HE4 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

Methods

Relevant articles retrieved from PubMed, Elsevier Science, Springer, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP databases were screened strictly according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included literature published from January 2005 to December 2021. (2) Serum HE4, CA125, CA199, and their combination for ovarian cancer diagnostic tests were studied, and healthy subjects or patients with the benign disease were taken as a control group. (3) Pathological tissue diagnosis as the gold standard. (4) Complete original data can be obtained. (5) The sample size was ≥20. (6) Language is limited to Chinese and English. Data features and QUADAS table were extracted from the included literature, and QUADAS evaluation tool detail table was used for the included study. Conduct quality evaluation. Statistical analysis was carried out using meta-disc software version 1.4. Appropriate effect model was selected to merge the effect size, and the forest maps of merge sensitivity, merge specificity, and merge likelihood ratio were obtained.

Results

The results of meta-analysis showed that there was a statistical difference in diagnostic specificity analysis of CA125 (OR = 1.91, 95% CI (1.58, 2.32), P < 0.00001, I² = 67%, Z = 6.58); diagnostic sensitivity analysis of CA125 (OR = 2.50, 95% CI (1.73, 3.62), P < 0.00001, I² = 0%, Z = 4.90); diagnostic specificity analysis of CA199 (OR = 1.98, 95% CI (1.60, 2.44), P < 0.00001, I² = 89%, Z = 6.35); diagnostic sensitivity analysis of CA199 (OR = 1.92, 95% CI (1.46, 2.52), P < 0.00001, I² = 73%, Z = 4.70); diagnostic specificity analysis of HE4 (OR = 2.08, 95% CI (1.65, 2.63), P < 0.00001, I² = 73%, Z = 6.19); diagnostic sensitivity analysis of HE4 (OR = 2.37, 95% CI (1.87, 3.00), P < 0.00001, I² = 83%, Z = 7.19).

Conclusion

In the clinical assisted diagnosis of ovarian cancer, combined detection of CA125, CA199, and HE4 has the stronger discriminant ability and higher accuracy than single detection of CA125, which can improve the diagnostic efficiency.

Controversies in Hereditary Cancer Management

Personalized management of patients at risk ideally should involve a multidisciplinary team of not only genetic counselors and surgeons, but also women's health or menopause specialists, knowledgeable psychologists, and primary care providers or obstetrician-gynecologists aware of the risks and fears "previvors" (survivors of a predisposition to cancer who have not had the disease) face as well as the issues that are common postoperatively. Identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancer, understanding of current genetic testing modalities and potential results, knowledge about screening and prevention including timing of surveillance, preventive medication and risk-reducing surgeries, understanding limitations and comorbidities associated with these risk management strategies and long-term psychological support are all important in hereditary cancer management. We describe issues surrounding the identification of the high-risk patient, universal testing in breast and ovarian cancer, and testing in special populations. We describe a simplified approach to understanding and communicating genetic testing results and nuances of testing including direct-to-consumer testing. We highlight concerns surrounding breast cancer screening during pregnancy and lactation. A framework for practical management and counseling of women who opt for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or risk-reducing mastectomy or both is provided. We provide an in-depth discussion of questions that arise in relation to timing of surgery, fertility preservation, management of menopausal symptoms, and surgical technique. Alternative choices in women who choose to delay bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy are reviewed. Finally, the psychosocial effects of carrying a genetic mutation and the issues that women face when undergoing to risk-reducing surgery including adjustment, sexuality issues, and cosmesis are addressed.