Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy and Ovarian Cancer Screening in 1077 Women After BRCA Testing | Breast Cancer | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277-30020610543PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(11):1329-133317416853PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB.New York Breast Cancer Study Group.  Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Science. 2003;302(5645):643-64614576434PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, 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(2):80-8719141781PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF,  et al.  Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality.  JAMA. 2010;304(9):967-97520810374PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME,  et al.  Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.  N Engl J Med. 2002;346(21):1609-161512023992PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Schwartz MD, Kaufman E, Peshkin BN,  et al.  Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and ovarian cancer screening following BRCA1 /BRCA2 mutation testing.  J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(21):4034-404114581427PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Uyei A, Peterson SK, Erlichman J,  et al.  Association between clinical characteristics and risk-reduction interventions in women who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: a single-institution study.  Cancer. 2006;107(12):2745-275117109443PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Madalinska JB, van Beurden M, Bleiker EM,  et al.  Predictors of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy compared with gynecologic screening use in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(3):301-30717235045PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J,  et al; Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group.  International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.  Int J Cancer. 2008;122(9):2017-202218196574PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Beattie MS, Crawford B, Lin F, Vittinghoff E, Ziegler J. Uptake, time course, and predictors of risk-reducing surgeries in BRCA carriers.  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2009;13(1):51-5619309274PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
American Cancer Society.  Can ovarian cancer be found early? Updated October 2010. http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/OvarianCancer/DetailedGuide/ovarian-cancer-detection. Accessed January 23, 2012
13.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice.  Committee opinion No. 477: the role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer.  Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):742-74621343791PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Gladstone CQ. Screening for ovarian cancer. In: Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, ed. Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 1994:870-881
15.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Practice Guidelines in Oncology.  Genetic familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Updated January 2011. https://subscriptions.nccn.org/gl_login.aspx?ReturnURL=http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2012
16.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for ovarian cancer: recommendation statement.  Am Fam Physician. 2005;71(4):759-76215756773PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Hermsen BB, Olivier RI, Verheijen RH,  et al.  No efficacy of annual gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers; an observational follow-up study.  Br J Cancer. 2007;96(9):1335-134217426707PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
van Nagell JR Jr, DePriest PD, Ueland FR,  et al.  Ovarian cancer screening with annual transvaginal sonography: findings of 25,000 women screened.  Cancer. 2007;109(9):1887-189617373668PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A,  et al; PLCO Project Team.  Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295-230321642681PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
van Nagell JR Jr, Miller RW, DeSimone CP,  et al.  Long-term survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer detected by ultrasonographic screening.  Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1212-122122105249PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
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(12):1500-150917903229PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Gaarenstroom KN, van der Hiel B, Tollenaar RA,  et al.  Efficacy of screening women at high risk of hereditary ovarian cancer: results of an 11-year cohort study.  Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:(suppl 1)  54-5916515568PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Laframboise S, Nedelcu R, Murphy J, Cole DE, Rosen B. Use of CA-125 and ultrasound in high-risk women.  Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12(1):86-9111860541PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
van der Velde NM, Mourits MJ, Arts HJ,  et al.  Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers?  Int J Cancer. 2009;124(4):919-92319035463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Parmigiani G, Berry DA, Aguilar O. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62(1):145-1589443863PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Lee R, Beattie M, Crawford B,  et al.  Recruitment, genetic counseling, and BRCA testing for underserved women at a public hospital.  Genet Test. 2005;9(4):306-31216379544PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Claritas.  The Nielsen Co: income producing assets and net worth profiles: assessing wealth by segment targeting. Updated 2008. http://www.clusterstaging.claritas.com/collateral/segmentation/targeting-by-segment_f3026.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2012
28.
Manchanda R, Burnell M, Abdelraheim A,  et al.  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(5):527-53622260402PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Sidon L, Ingham S, Clancy T,  et al.  Uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: evidence for lower uptake in women affected by breast cancer and older women.  Br J Cancer. 2012;106(4):775-77922187038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Schwartz MD, Isaacs C, Graves KD,  et al.  Long-term outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance.  Cancer. 2012;118(2):510-51721717445PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Lu K, Kauff N, Powell CB,  et al; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology; ACOG Committee on Genetics; Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 103: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome.  Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(4):957-96619305347PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Kauff ND, Mitra N, Robson ME,  et al.  Risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-negative hereditary breast cancer families.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(18):1382-138416174860PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Frank TS, Deffenbaugh AM, Reid JE,  et al.  Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(6):1480-149011896095PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Press DJ, Sullivan-Halley J, Ursin G,  et al.  Breast cancer risk and ovariectomy, hysterectomy, and tubal sterilization in the Women's Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study.  Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(1):38-4721109566PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Baldwin LM, Trivers KF, Matthews B,  et al.  Vignette-based study of ovarian cancer screening: do US physicians report adhering to evidence-based recommendations?  Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(3):182-19422312138PubMedGoogle Scholar
Original Investigation
Less Is More
Jan 28, 2013

Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy and Ovarian Cancer Screening in 1077 Women After BRCA Testing

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine (Dr Mannis), Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Risk Program (Ms Fehniger and Dr Beattie), Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences (Ms Creasman and Dr Jacoby), and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Ms Creasman and Dr Beattie), University of California, San Francisco. Ms Fehniger is a medical student at the University of Michigan Medical School.

JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(2):96-103. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.962
Abstract

Background For women at potentially increased risk for ovarian cancer, data regarding screening and risk reduction are limited. Previous studies have reported on the behaviors of BRCA mutation carriers, but less is known about the behaviors of non- BRCA carriers. We surveyed a large cohort of women after BRCA testing to identify the prevalence and posttest predictors of risk-reducing and screening interventions.

Methods A median of 3.7 years after BRCA testing, 1447 women who received genetic counseling and BRCA testing at 2 hospital sites were surveyed, with a 77.6% response rate. We analyzed data from 1077 survey respondents. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify predictors of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), screening transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS), and screening serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125).

Results Among the respondents, 201 women (18.7%) received positive test results for a deleterious mutation, 103 women (9.6%) received true-negative results, and 773 women (71.8%) received uninformative results. Overall, 19.1% of eligible women underwent RRSO and 39.6% used screening procedures. A positive BRCA result predicted RRSO (odds ratio [OR], 28.1; 95% CI, 16.2-48.6), TVUS (9.5 [4.3-21.0]), and serum CA-125 (13.0 [5.5-29.0]). Similarly, a true-negative BRCA result reduced the OR for RRSO (0.1 [0.0-0.6]), TVUS (0.2 [0.1-0.5]), and serum CA-125 (0.3 [0.1-0.7]). Of the 71.8% of women who received uninformative results after BRCA testing, 12.3% subsequently underwent RRSO, 33.8% reported ever having undergone screening serum CA-125 since BRCA testing, and 37.3% reported ever having undergone screening TVUS since BRCA testing.

Conclusions Results of BRCA testing strongly predict RRSO and ovarian cancer screening. Use of RRSO and ovarian screening was reported in a sizable percentage of non- BRCA carriers despite insufficient data to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.

×