56
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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)

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

          The study objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a decisional conflict scale (DCS) that elicits: 1) health-care consumers' uncertainty in making a health-related decision; 2) the factors contributing to the uncertainty; and 3) health-care consumers' perceived effective decision making. The DCS was developed in response to the lack of instruments available to evaluate health-care-consumer decision aids and to tailor decision-supporting interventions to particular consumer needs. The scale was evaluated with 909 individuals deciding about influenza immunization or breast cancer screening. A subsample of respondents was retested two weeks later. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.81. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.92. The DCS discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who had strong intentions either to accept or to decline invitations to receive influenza vaccine or breast cancer screening and those whose intentions were uncertain. The scale also discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who accepted or rejected immunization and those who delayed their decisions to be immunized. There was a weak inverse correlation (r = -0.16, p < 0.05) between the DCS and knowledge test scores. The psychometric properties of the scale are acceptable. It is feasible and easy to administer. Evaluations of responsiveness to change and validation with more difficult decisions are warranted.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Association between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and survival in women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer.

            Approximately 10% of women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) carry deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. A recent article suggested that BRCA2-related EOC was associated with an improved prognosis, but the effect of BRCA1 remains unclear. To characterize the survival of BRCA carriers with EOC compared with noncarriers and to determine whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers show similar survival patterns. A pooled analysis of 26 observational studies on the survival of women with ovarian cancer, which included data from 1213 EOC cases with pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1 (n = 909) or BRCA2 (n = 304) and from 2666 noncarriers recruited and followed up at variable times between 1987 and 2010 (the median year of diagnosis was 1998). Five-year overall mortality. The 5-year overall survival was 36% (95% CI, 34%-38%) for noncarriers, 44% (95% CI, 40%-48%) for BRCA1 carriers, and 52% (95% CI, 46%-58%) for BRCA2 carriers. After adjusting for study and year of diagnosis, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers showed a more favorable survival than noncarriers (for BRCA1: hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P < .001; and for BRCA2: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.76; P < .001). These survival differences remained after additional adjustment for stage, grade, histology, and age at diagnosis (for BRCA1: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84; P < .001; and for BRCA2: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61; P < .001). The BRCA1 HR estimate was significantly different from the HR estimated in the adjusted model (P for heterogeneity = .003). Among patients with invasive EOC, having a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was associated with improved 5-year overall survival. BRCA2 carriers had the best prognosis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

              Data concerning the efficacy of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy for reducing the risk of gynecologic cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are limited. We investigated whether this procedure reduces the risk of cancers of the coelomic epithelium and breast in women who carry such mutations. A total of 551 women with disease-associated germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were identified from registries and studied for the occurrence of ovarian and breast cancer. We determined the incidence of ovarian cancer in 259 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 292 matched controls who had not undergone the procedure. In a subgroup of 241 women with no history of breast cancer or prophylactic mastectomy, the incidence of breast cancer was determined in 99 women who had undergone bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and in 142 matched controls. The length of postoperative follow-up for both groups was at least eight years. Six women who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy (2.3 percent) received a diagnosis of stage I ovarian cancer at the time of the procedure; two women (0.8 percent) received a diagnosis of papillary serous peritoneal carcinoma 3.8 and 8.6 years after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy. Among the controls, 58 women (19.9 percent) received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, after a mean follow-up of 8.8 years. With the exclusion of the six women whose cancer was diagnosed at surgery, prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduced the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.16). Of 99 women who underwent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and who were studied to determine the risk of breast cancer, breast cancer developed in 21 (21.2 percent), as compared with 60 (42.3 percent) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.77). Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +31 (0)24 36 16683 , Marline.Harmsen@radboudumc.nl
                Marieke.Arts-deJong@radboudumc.nl
                Nicoline.Hoogerbrugge@radboudumc.nl
                Angela.Maas@radboudumc.nl
                Judith.Prins@radboudumc.nl
                Hans.Bulten@radboudumc.nl
                Steven.Teerenstra@radboudumc.nl
                Eddy.Adang@radboudumc.nl
                Jurgen.Piek@catharinaziekenhuis.nl
                H.vanDoorn@erasmusmc.nl
                M.v.Beurden@nki.nl
                M.J.E.Mourits@umcg.nl
                R.Zweemer@umcutrecht.nl
                K.N.Gaarenstroom@lumc.nl
                Brigitte.Slangen@mumc.nl
                C.Vos@elisabeth.nl
                L.R.vanLonkhuijzen@amc.uva.nl
                Leon.Massuger@radboudumc.nl
                Rosella.Hermens@radboudumc.nl
                Joanne.deHullu@radboudumc.nl
                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2407
                19 August 2015
                19 August 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 593
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, , 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]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
                [ ]Department of Gynaecology, Erasmus MC Cancer Clinic, ‘s-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Center for Gynaecological Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Centre, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [ ]Gynaecologic Oncologic Center South, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC Tilburg, The Netherlands
                [ ]Center for Gynaecological Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                Article
                1597
                10.1186/s12885-015-1597-y
                4541725
                26286255
                5455571b-e4a9-4e4c-b7aa-536734a8c79c
                © Harmsen et al. 2015

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 June 2015
                : 11 August 2015
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article