Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Must- Read Articles
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Must- Read Articles
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Review

Salpingectomy as a Means to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Risk

Mary B. Daly, Charles W. Dresher, Melinda S. Yates, Joanne M. Jeter, Beth Y. Karlan, David S. Alberts and Karen H. Lu
Mary B. Daly
1Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Mary.Daly@fccc.edu
Charles W. Dresher
2Department of Translational Outcomes Research Group of the Translational Research Program of the Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melinda S. Yates
3Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joanne M. Jeter
4Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beth Y. Karlan
5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David S. Alberts
6University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen H. Lu
3Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0293 Published May 2015
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) has become the standard-of-care for risk reduction in women at hereditary risk of ovarian cancer. Although this procedure significantly decreases both the incidence of and mortality from ovarian cancer, it affects quality of life, and the premature cessation of ovarian function may have long-term health hazards. Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular pathways of ovarian cancer point to the fallopian tube epithelium as the origin of most high-grade serous cancers (HGSC). This evolving appreciation of the role of the fallopian tube in HGSC has led to the consideration of salpingectomy alone as an option for risk management, especially in premenopausal women. In addition, it is postulated that bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian retention (BSOR), may have a public health benefit for women undergoing benign gynecologic surgery. In this review, we provide the rationale for salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer risk reduction strategy. Cancer Prev Res; 8(5); 342–8. ©2015 AACR.

See related commentary by Mark H. Greene, p. 339

Introduction

Epithelial ovarian cancer is relatively uncommon, accounting for only 3% of cancers in women in the United States (1). Approximately 22,280 women are diagnosed each year. However, ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from a gynecologic malignancy in the United States, and is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women overall. Globally, there are approximately 192,000 new cases of ovarian cancer each year (2). Incidence rates are highest in European and North American countries and lowest in African and Asian countries. Although mortality rates have remained relatively stable in the United States, there has been a 41.2% increase in deaths from ovarian cancer from 1990 to 2010 worldwide (3). The differences in international rates may be partially explained by differences in reproductive patterns and contraceptive choices or by environmental factors.

Although early-stage ovarian cancer is highly curable, most women present with late-stage disease resulting in an overall 5-year survival of only 43.8% (4). Screening options for ovarian cancer are limited. Most studies involved some combination of transvaginal ultrasound and the serum-based marker CA-125, neither of which has been shown to decrease ovarian cancer morbidity or mortality in either the general population or in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (5–7). Screening has also been associated with increased morbidity due to unnecessary surgery (8). Given the limitations of current screening modalities, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists discourage routine screening for ovarian cancer for the general population (9, 10).

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) has become the standard-of-care for risk reduction in women at hereditary risk of ovarian cancer. Although this procedure significantly decreases both the incidence of and mortality from ovarian cancer, it affects quality of life and has other health hazards (11). Recent advances in our understanding point to the fallopian tube epithelium as the origin of most high-grade serous cancers (HGSC), the most common and lethal ovarian cancer subtype, and has led to the consideration of salpingectomy alone as an option for risk management, especially in premenopausal women. In this review, we provide the rationale for salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer risk reduction strategy in the context of our current understanding of the etiology of ovarian cancer.

Review of the Epidemiology of Ovarian Cancer

Reproductive history has been one of the key determinants of ovarian cancer risk. Multiple studies have demonstrated that increased parity has a protective effect against ovarian cancer, whereas nulliparity has been shown to increase risk of this malignancy (12, 13).

Women with infertility are at increased risk of serous ovarian cancer. This result has been attributed more to the cause of infertility itself rather than the treatments for this condition. Some studies implicate endometriosis as the cause of the increased ovarian cancer risk associated with infertility, with patients diagnosed with endometriosis having 1.75 to 2.75 times the odds of cancer as compared with those with other causes of infertility (14, 15). Specific subtypes of ovarian cancer associated with endometriosis include clear cell, endometrioid, and low-grade serous cancers. A systematic review of the literature indicates that the risk of ovarian cancer is increased in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome [OR, 2.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08–5.89; ref. 16].

Data on the impact of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy on ovarian cancer risk have been contradictory. Meta-analyses of observational studies indicate that ever use of hormone replacement therapy is associated with a statistically significant 15% to 20% increase in the odds of ovarian cancer (17, 18). However, data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) showed no significant increase in risk in those randomized to combined estrogen–progesterone replacement therapy as compared with those taking placebo (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.77–3.24; ref. 19).

Oral contraceptive use has been consistently associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer in multiple studies. In a meta-analysis of 45 studies, ever use of oral contraceptives resulted in a statistically significant 27% reduction in risk (20). A dose–response effect has been reported: increasing duration of use resulted in larger reductions in ovarian cancer incidence, with an approximately 20% reduction in risk for every 5 years of use. The protective effect of oral contraceptive use persists up to 30 years after discontinuation of this medication. For women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, use of oral contraceptives reduced ovarian cancer risk by 50% (95% CI, 0.33–0.75; ref. 21). Conversely, no significant association was found between increased breast cancer risk and oral contraceptive use in this high-risk population.

Tubal ligation (TL) has been shown to be protective against ovarian cancer both in the general population and in individuals at increased risk. A meta-analysis of 13 observational studies showed that the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer was decreased 33% in those who underwent tubal ligation (22). The benefits of tubal ligation lasted up to 14 years after the procedure and applied to serous, endometrioid, clear cell, and mucinous subtypes. Similar risk reductions have been reported among BRCA1 carriers (23, 24).

Biology of Ovarian Cancer

The recent discovery of germline mutations that confer an increased risk of ovarian cancer has identified a small group of women at significantly increased risk of the disease. Women with deleterious germline mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes have a lifetime risk of ovarian cancer, which ranges from 36% to 46% for BRCA1 mutation carriers and from 10% to 27% for BRCA2 mutation carriers (25). Inherited germline mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 account for 9% and 8% of ovarian cancers, respectively. Somatic BRCA1/2 mutations have been reported in 5% to 10% of sporadic ovarian cancer cases. Several studies report BRCA1 silencing through promoter hypermethylation in 5% to 40% of cases (26). Alterations in the BRCA1/2 genes result in dysfunctional DNA repair through the homologous recombination pathway (27).

There has been a remarkable paradigm shift in the understanding of the origin of HGSC. Historically, it was assumed that ovarian tumorigenesis initiated in the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) or from cortical inclusion cysts that contain OSE. This view has recently been challenged by the identification of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas (STIC) and occult invasive serous carcinomas in 10% to 15% of the fallopian tubes examined from women with BRCA1/2 mutations who undergo BSO for prophylaxis (28, 29). These STIC precursor lesions closely resemble traditional HGSCs, and are not found in the corresponding ovaries of the prophylactic specimens. Lending support to the proposal that STICs are the precursor lesion to HGSC is the finding of identical TP53 mutations in STICs and both concomitant ovarian and/or peritoneal cancers (30, 31). In addition to these findings in women with a genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, subsequent studies found similar STICs and early invasive tubal carcinomas in 50% to 60% of women with sporadic ovarian cancer (28, 30, 32, 33). STICs are characterized by increased nuclear size, hyperchromasia, nucleolar prominence, mitotic activity, and loss of cell polarity (28, 34).

Even earlier fallopian tube lesions have been suggested to precede STICs and further support the fallopian tube as a primary site of tumor origin. The best characterized of these precursors is the “p53 signature,” defined as a focus of 12 or more cells with normal morphology, but with strong p53 immunostaining (35). The p53 signature localizes mainly at the fimbriated end of the fallopian tube (36). p53 signatures are found in over 90% of STICs, have been reported in direct association or even contiguous with STICs, and share identical TP53 mutations with both STICs and invasive cancers, all features that provide strong evidence of a clonal relationship among these tissues (30).

Preclinical ovarian cancer studies have historically relied on cultured ovarian surface epithelium, transgenic mouse models targeting the ovarian surface epithelium, or xenograft mouse models, all of which generally did not reflect the behavior of ovarian cancer in humans. New models have now been developed to focus on fallopian tube epithelium and better reflect the human disease, again adding credence to the fallopian tube site of origin. Levanon and colleagues (37) reported a mouse model using human fallopian tube secretory epithelial cells (FTSEC) transformed using multiple oncogenes and transplanted by intraperitoneal injection into mice. The transformed human FTSEC generated tumors in mice that resembled HGSC, an important proof-of-concept study confirming the potential for transformed fallopian tube cells to initiate tumorigenesis. Another new mouse model was recently reported that shows de novo HGSC arising from the fallopian tube. In this model, fallopian tube secretory cells were targeted for mutation of TP53, PTEN, and BRCA1 or BRCA2 using cell type–specific PAX8-driven Cre expression. The mutations resulted in HGSC and STIC arising from the fallopian tube as observed in the human disease. In these mice, HGSC metastasizes to the ovary and peritoneum much like the pattern seen in humans (38).

Evidence for Prophylactic Salpingo-Oophorectomy

BSO, surgical removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries, is a proven ovarian cancer prevention strategy. The procedure has been shown to dramatically reduce the risk of ovarian cancer among women at average and high genetic risk of the disease. Analysis of long-term follow-up data from participants in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) observational cohort demonstrates that when performed at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease in average risk women, incidental BSO is associated with an ovarian cancer HR of 0.06 compared with women who underwent hysterectomy without BSO (39).

The benefits of prophylactic BSO for women at increased genetic risk are clear. A meta-analysis that included 10 studies demonstrates that prophylactic removal of the fallopian tube and ovaries reduces future risk of ovarian cancer in high-risk women by >80% (25). A recent report from an observational cohort of roughly 5,800 mutation carriers confirms a similar reduction in ovarian cancer risk and importantly a 77% reduction in all-cause mortality to age 70 years (11). The residual risk of ovarian cancer is attributed to the failure to identify occult cancers at the time of the surgery, or the subsequent development of primary peritoneal cancer. BSO has also been associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk, especially when performed in premenopausal women with BRCA2 mutations (40, 41). Prophylactic BSO is recommended at ages 35 to 40 years and once child bearing is complete for all women with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndrome. Although effective, the overall public health impact of prophylactic BSO in high-risk women is relatively minor as only 7% to 10% of ovarian cancer occurs in mutation carriers.

Oophorectomy has significant side effects that limit its utility as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Oophorectomy in premenopausal women increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity, osteoporosis and endocrine-associated symptoms, including hot flashes and difficulties with sexual function (42–45). At least some of these side effects may be reduced by the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), but results from the WHI have significantly influenced women and physicians who now often avoid use of HRT (46). Although long-term HRT is frequently contraindicated in women with a prior history of or at risk for breast cancer, short-term hormone replacement therapy does not appear detrimental (47).

The noncancer implications of BSO in postmenopausal women are less clear. Postmenopausal ovaries produce low levels of estradiol and testosterone (48, 49), and it is hypothesized that these hormones play a role in postmenopausal cardiovascular and skeletal health (50, 51) and regulation of vasomotor symptoms (52). Some reports have identified an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, hip fracture, lung cancer, and all-cause mortality (42, 53, 54) in postmenopausal women undergoing oophorectomy, whereas other studies have demonstrated no effect on these same endpoints (43, 55). The effectiveness of estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) alone in reducing side effects attributable to oophorectomy in postmenopausal women is controversial. Data from the WHI demonstrate that ERT following hysterectomy increases the risk of thromboembolic events and stroke, reduces hip fractures, and does not affect coronary heart disease (19). These effects may differ when therapy is started early around the time of menopause (56).

Data on the impact of elective BSO on disease endpoints have been derived largely from observational cohort studies comparing women with and without ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease. Parker (39) reported outcomes for 29,380 NHS participants who underwent hysterectomy, approximately half of whom also underwent BSO. Disease endpoints were confirmed by one or more of the following: self-report, medical record review, and death certificate. After adjustment for relevant risk factors, including use of ERT, BSO was associated with increased risk for overall mortality (RR, 1.12), fatal and nonfatal CHD (RR, 1.17) and stroke (RR, 1.14), and reduced risk for breast (RR, 0.75), ovarian (RR, 0.04), and all cancer (RR, 0.9). Lung cancer incidence (RR, 1.26) and total cancer mortality (RR, 1.17) were increased. Risk for hip fracture was not affected. The effect of BSO on CHD and stroke was most pronounced in women who underwent hysterectomy before the age of 50 years and who never used ERT. A separate population-based cohort study demonstrated increased mortality (HR, 1.67) for women undergoing bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 45 years (43). A more recent report from WHI investigators focused on 25,448 women ages 50 to 79 years at enrollment who were in the observational arm of the study who reported a prior history of hysterectomy. With a median follow-up of roughly 7.6 years, BSO had no effect on the risk of fatal or nonfatal CHD, coronary artery bypass grafts, angioplasty, stroke, total cardiovascular disease, hip fracture, or death. BSO decreased ovarian cancer risk and had no effect on the incidence of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. The findings were not influenced by the age at the time of hysterectomy or use of ERT (55). Potential explanations for these conflicting results include details related to study design, methods for risk factor adjustments, and duration and method of follow-up. Because of these contradictory data, it remains a significant challenge for clinicians to reliably inform a woman contemplating oophorectomy about the implications of the procedure for her.

The finding that at least some HGSC arises in the fallopian tube raises the intriguing hypothesis that it may be possible to reduce ovarian cancer mortality among women with a genetic susceptibility to HGSC through bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian retention (BSOR), a surgical procedure that removes the fallopian tubes but leaves the ovaries in situ. In support of this hypothesis are the following: (i) HGSC is the most common and lethal epithelial ovarian cancer subtype associated with BRCA1/2, and consequently a strategy that prevents primarily HGSC is likely to have a major impact on ovarian cancer mortality, and (ii) tubal ligation, a surgical procedure that involves disruption and/or interruption of the fallopian tube has been consistently found to provide a 50% reduction in epithelial ovarian cancer risk (20, 22). BSOR avoids the long-term complications of oophorectomy-associated changes in sex hormone levels. The effectiveness of BSOR in preventing EOC will depend, to a large extent, on the proportion of cancers that arise in the fallopian tubes, which remains unknown. BSOR is an appealing prevention strategy for premenopausal high-risk women for whom BSO is recommended but who are reluctant to have their ovaries removed due to hormonal implications. For these women, BSOR might serve as a temporary measure until definitive risk-reducing surgery is desired. Retention of ovarian function until the age of natural menopause may abrogate the negative sequelae of bone and cardiovascular health associated with early surgical menopause. In addition to removing the fallopian tube, BSOR prevents any menstrual spillage that is thought to be the origin of endometriosis and possible endometriod and clear cell ovarian cancer (57).

For women at average risk of ovarian cancer, performing BSOR at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease is another compelling prevention opportunity. Until very recently, salpingectomy was typically not performed as part of a standard hysterectomy procedure unless the ovaries were also being removed. Approximately 600,000 hysterectomies are performed in the United States each year, 50% of which are performed in women less than 50 years of age, in whom the ovaries are frequently retained. Performing salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy in these women could reduce overall ovarian cancer incidence by up to 15% if the procedure were 100% effective in preventing ovarian cancer as roughly 15% of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer have had a prior hysterectomy (58, 59). Likewise, premenopausal women seeking permanent contraception could opt for BSOR rather than tubal ligation, which leaves the fimbria intact. However, because tubal ligation is associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk it will be important to evaluate the marginal benefit of performing BSOR in terms of additional cases prevented. Most important will be prevention of HGSC due to the aggressive nature of this subtype and evidence that tubal ligation may have greater protection toward the endometrioid and clear cell subtypes (60). Tubal ligation is frequently performed in the postpartum period, which may increase the complexity of the BSOR procedure due to increased blood flow or anatomic issues related to an enlarged uterus.

Salpingectomy involves the resection of the complete terminal part of the tube from the uterine level to the ovary and can be performed laparoscopically, transvaginally, or during open abdominal surgery. When performed for prevention, it has been recommended that the procedure be accompanied by inspection of the abdomino-pelvic cavity and the collection of pelvic washings (61). Data are accumulating to suggest that the salpingectomy procedure at the time of hysterectomy is feasible and safe and does not affect short-term ovarian function. In 2010, investigators in British Columbia initiated a province-wide ovarian cancer prevention initiative by educating obstetricians and gynecologists about the potential benefits of salpingectomy. They encouraged physicians to consider removal of the fallopian tubes at the time of hysterectomy even when the ovaries were retained and in lieu of tubal ligation for women electing permanent sterilization. Compared with before the intervention, there was a significant uptake in salpingectomy procedures, especially among women less than 50 years of age. Bilateral salpingectomy required minimal additional operative time (16 and 10 minutes on average for hysterectomy and sterilization, respectively) and was not associated with increased hospital stays, readmissions, or surgical complications (62). In two recent studies, the addition of salpingectomy to a laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure with careful preservation of the blood vessels adjacent to the ovarian hilum did not impact antimullerian and follicle stimulating hormone levels, ovarian volume, or antral follicle count and blood flow up to 3 months following the procedure (63, 64). Combined, these data support the concept that bilateral salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy is feasible and does not increase surgical morbidity or impact short-term ovarian function. However, additional data in more patients and longer follow-up are required before the safety and efficacy of the procedure can be established. Especially important will be additional information on ovarian function beyond 12 months following the procedure. Although current rates of BSOR in the United States are unknown, the approach appears acceptable to women. One-third of 205 BRCA mutation carriers with a median age of 35 indicated a definite interest in the procedure (41). Recent survey studies confirm that roughly 60% of physicians counsel women about the potential benefits of BSOR at the time of hysterectomy (65) and roughly 54% of physicians perform the procedure (66). However, only 7.2% of physicians prefer BSOR as a primary sterilization procedure.

Next Steps

Although our view of epithelial ovarian cancer initiation has improved drastically with the understanding that carcinogenesis can begin in the fallopian tube epithelium, many knowledge gaps must be acknowledged when we consider moving forward for this new prevention strategy. For example, STIC are identified in only 50% to 60% of sporadic HGSC; does this mean that the other 40% to 50% arise through a different mechanism? STIC observations are a single snapshot in time, making it difficult to make definitive conclusions based on these descriptive studies alone. In cases without an identified STIC, the initial STIC may no longer be visible if invasive carcinoma has overgrown the site of initiation. Another question that remains to be addressed is the mechanism underlying the apparent preference for tumor growth or metastasis and dominant mass development at the site of the ovary, despite cancer initiation in the fallopian tube (32, 67). Furthermore, we do not know how early these transformed cells may be able to “seed” onto the ovary or peritoneum. In addition, a small study of women with unexpected cancers diagnosed at RRSO reported an intriguing observation that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with invasive carcinomas were younger than women with noninvasive carcinoma (STIC; ref. 68). This would suggest that the natural history is different for these two groups of women, yet larger studies are required to more carefully evaluate this issue.

With this new understanding that HGSC most commonly originates in the fallopian tube, we must reevaluate our approach to ovarian cancer prevention. Fundamental changes are required from basic science to clinical practice. Laboratory researchers must now define the fallopian tube epithelium as the baseline for identifying molecular changes that can be targeted for prevention, in contrast to previous studies using ovarian surface epithelium. Longstanding questions regarding the impact of ovulation and ovarian hormones must also be reconsidered from this new perspective in which the fallopian tube epithelium is the predominant at-risk cell type.

Clinically, new approaches to prophylactic surgery must be evaluated to determine the value of salpingectomy as an alternative primary prevention procedure in women at high-risk, or opportunistic salpingectomy, performed at the time of benign gynecologic surgery or tubal sterilization for women at general population risk. Although a two-step surgical strategy that includes BSOR before menopause followed by postmemopausal oophorectomy offers an attractive alternative to the current standard of BSO after age 35 in high-risk women, there are currently no data demonstrating long-term benefits, including reduction in incidence of ovarian cancer, improved overall survival, or preservation of ovarian function with the two-stepped surgical approach. Several studies have found that the reduction in the risk of breast cancer associated with oophorectomy before menopause may be abridged by delaying removal of the ovaries until closer to the time of natural menopause (69–71). Ovarian preservation could lead to a reduction in cardiovascular disease and bone loss and improved quality of life. Because the timing of the progression from p53 overexpression to STIC to invasive disease within the fallopian tube or metastasis is not well characterized, there are no data to guide the optimal timing of the two surgeries, or whether the timing should differ by the type of mutation (e.g., BRCA1, BRCA2, or a mismatch repair mutation). The impact of a two-staged surgical approach on quality of life is not known. It is also not known what percentage of women would ultimately decline the second surgery, or delay it beyond the age of natural menopause, and how that would impact their risk of ovarian cancer. The interaction of prophylactic salpingectomy with other risk reducing measures, such as oral contraceptive use, multiparity, or prior TL is unknown. Finally, there are little data on the overall cost benefit ratio of the two-staged surgical approach in terms of competing risks and benefits. Many of these uncertainties regarding the long-term consequences of BSOR also apply to average risk women who undergo hysterectomy or TL. Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of BSOR is particularly important in this group, as average risk women are unlikely to undergo later oophorectomy.

Before this new, theoretically attractive approach replaces the current standard of BSO in premenopausal high-risk women, there is a window of time within which many of these questions can be addressed to develop a base of evidence. The ideal study design would be a prospective randomized trial that would compare the benefits and risks of BSOR alone followed by delayed oophorectomy, with the benefits and risks of BSO as a single surgery. Such a trial would, however, be costly and raises some questions about the potential ethical concerns associated with a randomized assignment of type of surgery among high-risk women. An alternative approach would be to create a consortium of clinicians who are managing the gynecologic health of women and who would agree to follow a common protocol with the collection of common data elements and biospecimens. Both high-risk and average-risk women undergoing hysterectomy for benign conditions could be eligible to participate. The protocol would emphasize a shared decision-making process with clinician and patient reviewing the current level of evidence for the two-staged versus a single-step approach in high-risk premenopausal women and incorporation of salpingectomy as part of the standard hysterectomy in average-risk women as part of their choice of surgical approach. A cohort study could identify variables that are associated with the choice and timing of surgery, including demographic, training and health care setting of the clinicians, and demographic, health status, and mutation status of the patients. The cohort would create a valuable resource for scientists to explore molecular, clinical, and behavioral ancillary studies. The Ovarian SPORE community in collaboration with the cooperative group consortia are ideally suited to take a lead in developing this consortium, which would be of great value for women and their clinicians as they face the decision of oophorectomy in the future.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

This work was supported by Fox Chase Cancer Center Ovarian SPORE grant P50 CA083636, the MD Anderson Uterine Cancer SPORE grant P50 CA098258, and the Ovarian SPORE P50 CA083639 SPORE grant, NCI P50 CA083636 (Urban), American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship: SIOP-06-258-01-COUN (Karlan) provided funding for this study.

  • Received September 3, 2014.
  • Revision received November 17, 2014.
  • Accepted December 29, 2014.
  • ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Roett MA,
    2. Evans P
    . Ovarian cancer: an overview. Am Fam Physician 2009;80:609–16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Parkin DM,
    2. Whelan SL,
    3. Ferlay JEA
    . Cancer incidence in five continents. IARC Cancer Base No. 7. Lyon, France; 2005.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lozano R,
    2. Naghavi M,
    3. Foreman K,
    4. Lim S,
    5. Shibuya K,
    6. Aboyans V,
    7. et al.
    Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380:2095–128.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Jonathan W,
    2. Pine J
    1. Brinton LA,
    2. Sahasrabuddhe VV,
    3. Trabert B
    . Epidemiology of gynecologic cancers. In: Jonathan W, Pine J , editors. Principles and practices of gynecologic oncology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2013. p. 1–29.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hermsen BBJ,
    2. Olivier RI,
    3. Verheijen RHM,
    4. van Beurden M,
    5. de Hullu JA,
    6. Massuger LF,
    7. et al.
    No efficacy of annual gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers; an observational follow-up study. Br J Cancer 2007;96:1335–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Stirling D,
    2. Evans GR,
    3. Pichert G,
    4. Shenton A,
    5. Kirk EN,
    6. Rimmer S,
    7. et al.
    Screening for familial ovarian cancer: Failure of current protocols to detect ovarian cancer at an early stage according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics System. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5588–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. van der Velde NM,
    2. Mourits MJ,
    3. Arts HJ,
    4. de Vries J,
    5. Leegte BK,
    6. Dijkhuis G,
    7. et al.
    Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers? Int J Cancer 2009;124:919–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Buys SS,
    2. Partridge E,
    3. Greene MH,
    4. Prorok PC,
    5. Reding D,
    6. Riley TL,
    7. et al.
    Ovarian cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screen of a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1630–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    ACOG ACoOaG, Gynecology ACoPB, Oncologists. ACoGSoG. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 103. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:957–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Force USPST. Screening for Ovarian Cancer Clinical Summary of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation; 2014.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Finch AP,
    2. Lubinski J,
    3. Moller P,
    4. Singer CF,
    5. Karlan B,
    6. Senter L,
    7. et al.
    Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1547–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hankinson SE,
    2. Colditz GA,
    3. Hunter DJ,
    4. Willett WC,
    5. Stampfer MJ,
    6. Rosner B,
    7. et al.
    A prospective study of reproductive factors and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer 1995;76:284–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tsilidis KK,
    2. Allen NE,
    3. Key TJ,
    4. Dossus L,
    5. Lukanova A,
    6. Bakken K,
    7. et al.
    Oral contraceptive use and reproductive factors and risk of ovarian cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Br J Cancer 2011;105:1436–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ness RB,
    2. Cramer DW,
    3. Goodman MT,
    4. Kjaer SK,
    5. Mallin K,
    6. Mosgaard BJ,
    7. et al.
    Infertility, fertility drugs, and ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:217–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Brinton LA,
    2. Lamb EJ,
    3. Moghissi KS,
    4. Scoccia B,
    5. Althuis MD,
    6. Mabie JE,
    7. et al.
    Ovarian cancer risk associated with varying causes of infertility. Fertil Steril 2004;82:405–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Chittenden BG,
    2. Fullerton G,
    3. Maheshwari A,
    4. Bhattacharya S
    . Polycystic ovary syndrome and the risk of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:398–405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Zhou B,
    2. Sun QM,
    3. Cong RH,
    4. Gu HJ,
    5. Tang NP,
    6. Yang L,
    7. et al.
    Hormone replacement therapy and ovarian cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108:641–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Garg PP,
    2. Kerlikowske K,
    3. Subak L,
    4. Grady D
    . Hormone replacement therapy and the risk of epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:472–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Anderson GL,
    2. Limacher M,
    3. Assaf AR,
    4. Bassford T,
    5. Beresford SAA,
    6. Black H,
    7. et al.
    Effects of conjugated, equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy - The women's health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:1701–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Whittemore AS,
    2. Harris R,
    3. Itnyre J
    . Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. IV. The pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:1212–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Iodice S,
    2. Barile M,
    3. Rotmensz N,
    4. Feroce I,
    5. Bonanni B,
    6. Radice P,
    7. et al.
    Oral contraceptive use and breast or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2275–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Cibula D,
    2. Widschwendter M,
    3. Majek O,
    4. Dusek L
    . Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:55–67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Antoniou AC,
    2. Rookus M,
    3. Andrieu N,
    4. Brohet R,
    5. Chang-Claude J,
    6. Peock S,
    7. et al.
    Reproductive and hormonal factors, and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:601–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Narod SA,
    2. Sun P,
    3. Ghadirian P,
    4. Lynch H,
    5. Isaacs C,
    6. Garber J,
    7. et al.
    Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet 2001;357:1467–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Rebbeck TR,
    2. Kauff ND,
    3. Domchek SM
    . Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:80–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Baldwin RL,
    2. Nemeth E,
    3. Tran H,
    4. Shvartsman H,
    5. Cass I,
    6. Narod S,
    7. et al.
    BRCA1 promoter region hypermethylation in ovarian carcinoma: a population-based study. Cancer Res 2000;60:5329–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Bast RC,
    2. Hennessy B,
    3. Mills GB
    . The biology of ovarian cancer: new opportunities for translation. Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9:415–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Kurman RJ
    . Origin and molecular pathogenesis of ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2013;24 Suppl 10:x16–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Powell CB,
    2. Chen LM,
    3. McLennan J,
    4. Crawford B,
    5. Zaloudek C,
    6. Rabban JT,
    7. et al.
    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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kurman RJ,
    2. Shih Ie M
    . Molecular pathogenesis and extraovarian origin of epithelial ovarian cancer–shifting the paradigm. Hum Pathol 2011;42:918–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Carlson JW,
    2. Miron A,
    3. Jarboe EA,
    4. Parast MM,
    5. Hirsch MS,
    6. Lee Y,
    7. et al.
    Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: its potential role in primary peritoneal serous carcinoma and serous cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4160–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Yates MS,
    2. Meyer LA,
    3. Deavers MT,
    4. Daniels MS,
    5. Keeler ER,
    6. Mok SC,
    7. et al.
    Microscopic and early-stage ovarian cancers in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: building a model for early BRCA-associated tumorigenesis. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:463–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Crum CP,
    2. McKeon FD,
    3. Xian W
    . BRCA, the oviduct, and the space and time continuum of pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012;22 Suppl 1:S29–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Kindelberger DW,
    2. Lee Y,
    3. Miron A,
    4. Hirsch MS,
    5. Feltmate C,
    6. Medeiros F,
    7. et al.
    Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: Evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:161–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Folkins AK,
    2. Jarboe EA,
    3. Saleemuddin A,
    4. Lee Y,
    5. Callahan MJ,
    6. Drapkin R,
    7. et al.
    A candidate precursor to pelvic serous cancer (p53 signature) and its prevalence in ovaries and fallopian tubes from women with BRCA mutations. Gynecol Oncol 2008;109:168–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Lee Y,
    2. Miron A,
    3. Drapkin R,
    4. Nucci MR,
    5. Medeiros F,
    6. Saleemuddin A,
    7. et al.
    A candidate precursor to serous carcinoma that originates in the distal fallopian tube. J Pathol 2007;211:26–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Levanon K,
    2. Ng V,
    3. Piao HY,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Chang MC,
    6. Roh MH,
    7. et al.
    Primary ex vivo cultures of human fallopian tube epithelium as a model for serous ovarian carcinogenesis. Oncogene 2010;29:1103–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Perets R,
    2. Wyant GA,
    3. Muto KW,
    4. Bijron JG,
    5. Poole BB,
    6. Chin KT,
    7. et al.
    Transformation of the fallopian tube secretory epithelium leads to high-grade serous ovarian cancer in Brca;Tp53;Pten models. Cancer Cell 2013;24:751–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Parker WH,
    2. Broder MS,
    3. Chang E,
    4. Feskanich D,
    5. Farquhar C,
    6. Liu ZM,
    7. et al.
    Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the Nurses' Health Study. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:1027–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Arnold AG,
    2. Kauff ND
    . Prophylactic oophorectomy may differentially reduce breast cancer risk in women with BRCA1 versus BRCA2 mutations. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2009;1:157–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    1. Shah P,
    2. Rosen M,
    3. Stopfer J,
    4. Siegfried J,
    5. Kaltman R,
    6. Mason B,
    7. et al.
    Prospective study of breast MRI in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: effect of mutation status on cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;118:539–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Parker WH,
    2. Jacoby V,
    3. Shoupe D,
    4. Rocca W
    . Effect of bilateral oophorectomy on women's long-term health. Women's Health 2009;5:565–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    1. Rocca WA,
    2. Grossardt BR,
    3. de Andrade M,
    4. Malkasian GD,
    5. Melton LJ III.
    . Survival patterns after oophorectomy in premenopausal women: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:821–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Madalinska JB,
    2. Hollenstein J,
    3. Bleiker E,
    4. van Beurden M,
    5. Valdimarsdottir HB,
    6. Massuger LF,
    7. et al.
    Quality-of-life effects of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy versus gynecologic screening among women at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6890–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Robson M,
    2. Hensley M,
    3. Barakat R,
    4. Brown C,
    5. Chi D,
    6. Poynor E,
    7. et al.
    Quality of life in women at risk for ovarian cancer who have undergone risk-reducing oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:281–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Chan LY,
    2. Yuen PM
    . Influence of the Women's Health Initiative trial on the practice of prophylactic oophorectomy and the prescription of estrogen therapy. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1699–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Rebbeck TR,
    2. Friebel T,
    3. Wagner T,
    4. Lynch HT,
    5. Garber JE,
    6. Daly MB,
    7. et al.
    Effect of short-term hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk reduction after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7804–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Fogle RH,
    2. Stanczyk FZ,
    3. Zhang X,
    4. Paulson RJ
    . Ovarian androgen production in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:3040–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Laughlin GA,
    2. Barrett-Connor E,
    3. Kritz-Silverstein D,
    4. von Muhlen D
    . Hysterectomy, oophorectomy, and endogenous sex hormone levels in older women: the Rancho Bernardo Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:645–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Hickey M,
    2. Ambekar M,
    3. Hammond I
    . Should the ovaries be removed or retained at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease? Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:131–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Raisz LG,
    2. Wiita B,
    3. Artis A,
    4. Bowen A,
    5. Schwartz S,
    6. Trahiotis M,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of the effects of estrogen alone and estrogen plus androgen on biochemical markers of bone formation and resorption in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;81:37–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Sarrel PM
    . Cardiovascular aspects of androgens in women. Seminars in reproductive endocrinology. Semin Reprod Endocrinol 1998;16:121–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Atsma F,
    2. Bartelink MLEL,
    3. Grobbee DE,
    4. van der Schouw YT
    . Postmenopausal status and early menopause as independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. Menopause 2006;13:265–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Shoupe D,
    2. Parker WH,
    3. Broder MS,
    4. Liu ZM,
    5. Farquhar C,
    6. Berek JS
    . Elective oophorectomy for benign gynecological disorders. Menopause 2007;14:580–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Jacoby VL,
    2. Grady D,
    3. Wactawski-Wende J,
    4. Manson JE,
    5. Allison MA,
    6. Kuppermann M,
    7. et al.
    Oophorectomy vs ovarian conservation with hysterectomy cardiovascular disease, hip fracture, and cancer in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:760–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Harman SM,
    2. Brinton EA,
    3. Clarkson T,
    4. Heward CB,
    5. Hecht HS,
    6. Karas RH,
    7. et al.
    Is the WHI relevant to HRT started in the perimenopause? Endocrine 2004;24:195–202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Leblanc E,
    2. Narducci F,
    3. Farre I,
    4. Peyrat JP,
    5. Taieb S,
    6. Adenis C,
    7. et al.
    Radical fimbriectomy: a reasonable temporary risk-reducing surgery for selected women with a germ line mutation of BRCA 1 or 2 genes? Rationale and preliminary development. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121:472–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Davis R,
    2. Unger JB
    . Ovarian cancer in women with prior hysterectomy. J La State Med Soc 2003;155:113–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. McGowan L
    . Ovarian cancer after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:386–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Rice MS,
    2. Hankinson SE,
    3. Tworoger SS
    . Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, unilateral oophorectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer in the Nurses' Health Studies. Fertil Steril 2014;102:192–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Chene G,
    2. Rahimi K,
    3. Mes-Masson AM,
    4. Provencher D
    . Surgical implications of the potential new tubal pathway for ovarian carcinogenesis. J Minim Invas Gyn 2013;20:153–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    1. McAlpine JN,
    2. Hanley GE,
    3. Woo MM,
    4. Tone AA,
    5. Rozenberg N,
    6. Swenerton KD,
    7. et al.
    Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:471.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Morelli M,
    2. Venturella R,
    3. Zullo F
    . Risk-reducing salpingectomy as a new and safe strategy to prevent ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:395–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Findley AD,
    2. Siedhoff MT,
    3. Hobbs KA,
    4. Steege JF,
    5. Carey ET,
    6. McCall CA,
    7. et al.
    Short-term effects of salpingectomy during laparoscopic hysterectomy on ovarian reserve: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013;100:1704–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Morosky CM,
    2. Kueck KD
    . Salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications: a survey study. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123 Suppl 1:126S.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    1. Gill SE,
    2. Mills BB
    . Physician opinions regarding elective bilateral salpingectomy with hysterectomy and for sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:517–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Nik NN,
    2. Vang R,
    3. Shih Ie M,
    4. Kurman RJ
    . Origin and pathogenesis of pelvic (ovarian, tubal, and primary peritoneal) serous carcinoma. Annu Rev Pathol 2014;9:27–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Powell CB,
    2. Swisher EM,
    3. Cass I,
    4. McLennan J,
    5. Norquist B,
    6. Garcia RL,
    7. et al.
    Long term follow up of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with unsuspected neoplasia identified at risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2013;129:364–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Eisen A,
    2. Lubinski J,
    3. Klijn J,
    4. Moller P,
    5. Lynch HT,
    6. Offit K,
    7. et al.
    Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7491–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Kotsopoulos J,
    2. Lubinski J,
    3. Lynch HT,
    4. Kim-Sing C,
    5. Neuhausen S,
    6. Demsky R,
    7. et al.
    Oophorectomy after menopause and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:1089–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Olopade OI,
    2. Artioli G
    . Efficacy of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations. Breast J 2004;10 Suppl 1:S5–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 8 (5)
May 2015
Volume 8, Issue 5
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Salpingectomy as a Means to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Risk
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Salpingectomy as a Means to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Risk
Mary B. Daly, Charles W. Dresher, Melinda S. Yates, Joanne M. Jeter, Beth Y. Karlan, David S. Alberts and Karen H. Lu
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2015 (8) (5) 342-348; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0293

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Salpingectomy as a Means to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Risk
Mary B. Daly, Charles W. Dresher, Melinda S. Yates, Joanne M. Jeter, Beth Y. Karlan, David S. Alberts and Karen H. Lu
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2015 (8) (5) 342-348; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0293
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Review of the Epidemiology of Ovarian Cancer
    • Biology of Ovarian Cancer
    • Evidence for Prophylactic Salpingo-Oophorectomy
    • Next Steps
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Diet and DNA Damage Repair in Cancer
  • Cancer in Normal Weight Individuals with Metabolic Obesity
  • Cancer Chemoprevention with Mitochondria-targeted Agents
Show more Review
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement