Gynecologic oncology · 2005
Additional salpingectomy after previous prophylactic oophorectomy in high-risk women: sense or nonsense?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Olivier Roelien I, Lubsen-Brandsma Lottie A C, van Boven Hester, van Beurden Marc
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Since BRCA1/2 germ line mutation carriers are also at a higher risk of developing fallopian tube carcinoma, resection of the fallopian tubes is currently included at the time of risk reducing surgery. In this study, we comment on the need of additional bilateral prophylactic salpingectomy (BPS) following previous bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy (BPO) in women at high risk of ovarian cancer.
METHODS: Retrospectively, the medical files of 42 high-risk women, who had undergone BPO only, were reviewed.
RESULTS: In our center, risk-reducing surgery consisted of BPO only for 42 women. Twenty-seven women received an informative letter in which counseling for additional BPS was offered. In total, 15 women opted for additional BPS. Surgery was performed with a mean interval of 65 months (range 6-101) in 10 BRCA1 carriers, one BRCA2 carrier, one BRCA1 and 2 carrier, and three women with non-informative test results. The procedure was readily done by laparoscopy in 13 women and two needed a laparotomy. No post-operative complications had occurred. Histopathological examination revealed no malignancy.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that additional risk reduction of cancer necessitates BPS in BRCA1/2 carriers after previous BPO. BPS after previous BPO was easily performed. Today, physicians should include resection of the fallopian tube at prophylactic surgery in high-risk women and should consider additional BPS in women who have undergone BPO only.
METHODS: Retrospectively, the medical files of 42 high-risk women, who had undergone BPO only, were reviewed.
RESULTS: In our center, risk-reducing surgery consisted of BPO only for 42 women. Twenty-seven women received an informative letter in which counseling for additional BPS was offered. In total, 15 women opted for additional BPS. Surgery was performed with a mean interval of 65 months (range 6-101) in 10 BRCA1 carriers, one BRCA2 carrier, one BRCA1 and 2 carrier, and three women with non-informative test results. The procedure was readily done by laparoscopy in 13 women and two needed a laparotomy. No post-operative complications had occurred. Histopathological examination revealed no malignancy.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that additional risk reduction of cancer necessitates BPS in BRCA1/2 carriers after previous BPO. BPS after previous BPO was easily performed. Today, physicians should include resection of the fallopian tube at prophylactic surgery in high-risk women and should consider additional BPS in women who have undergone BPO only.