Primary prevention of ovarian cancer: a patient decision aid for opportunistic salpingectomy.

BACKGROUND: The discovery of the fallopian tube epithelium as the origin of high-grade serous ovarian cancer has brought a new option for ovarian cancer prevention. The fallopian tubes have no known function after completion of childbearing and can be removed to reduce the lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Although the lifetime risk in the general population does not justify preventive surgery in itself, salpingectomy can be performed during abdominal surgery for other indications, also known as an opportunistic salpingectomy. The popularity of opportunistic salpingectomy is increasing worldwide; however, the variation between gynecologists and hospitals in their advice on opportunistic salpingectomy occurs because of the remaining uncertainty of evidence. Therefore, whether a woman can make her own decision depends on the hospital or gynecologist she visits. We aimed to lower this practice variation by providing standardized and unbiased counseling material. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and test a patient decision aid for opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing pelvic gynecologic surgery to either retain the ovaries or opt for sterilization. STUDY DESIGN: We followed a systematic development process based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Data were collected between June 2019 and June 2020, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The development process that occurred in collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals was overseen by a multidisciplinary steering group and was divided into 4 phases: (1) assessment of decisional needs using individual telephone interviews and questionnaires; (2) development of content and format based on decisional needs, current literature, and guidelines; (3) alpha testing and the first revision round; and (4) alpha testing and the second revision round. RESULTS: An outline of the patient decision aid was developed on the basis of decisional needs, current literature, and guidelines. It became clear that the decision aid should consist of 2 separate paths: one with information specifically for salpingectomy in addition to abdominal surgery and one for salpingectomy as a sterilization method. Both paths contained information on the anatomy and function of ovaries and fallopian tubes, risk reduction of ovarian cancer, and potential benefits and risks of opportunistic salpingectomy. Moreover, the sterilization path contains information on various sterilization methods and risks of unwanted pregnancy. The patient decision aid was developed as an online tool that includes information chapters, a knowledge quiz, consideration statements, and a summary detailing the patient's preferences and considerations. Adjustments were made following alpha testing round 1. The improved patient decision aid was subjected to usability tests (alpha testing round 2), in which it scored an "excellent" in tests with patients and a "good" in tests with gynecologists. Furthermore, our patient decision aid met the requirements of 45 of 49 applicable items from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria. CONCLUSION: In collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals, a patient decision aid was developed on opportunistic salpingectomy and salpingectomy as a sterilization method. Both patients and gynecologists believed it is a useful tool that supports patients in making an informed decision whether to undergo an opportunistic salpingectomy and supports the counseling process by gynecologists.

Patients' and professionals' perspectives on implementation of opportunistic salpingectomy: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: To prevent ovarian cancer, several international societies have issued guidelines which recommend to discuss opportunistic salpingectomy with women undergoing pelvic surgery after completion of childbearing. The opportunistic salpingectomy refers to the additional removal of Fallopian tubes during pelvic surgery for another indication to reduce the risk of developing ovarian cancer. These recommendations emphasize the importance of counselling on benefits and risks of opportunistic salpingectomy but offer no guidance on their implementation in daily practice. The lack of a tailored implementation strategy has resulted in a wide variation in current practice. To reduce this practice variation, we identified influencing factors on implementing opportunistic salpingectomy from patients' and professionals' perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method study between 2019 and 2020 throughout the Netherlands. In a qualitative phase, we conducted interviews with gynecologic patients (N = 11) and their professionals (N = 20) to explore barriers and facilitators, using an interview guide. In the quantitative phase, we quantified these barriers and facilitators among patients who underwent a hysterectomy or sterilization and were counselled on the opportunistic salpingectomy (N = 77), and members of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (N = 204), using questionnaires. For both phases, barriers and facilitators were classified into the following domains: innovation, patient, healthcare professional, social setting, organization, and economic and political context. RESULTS: For patients, main barriers were lack of knowledge about: the existence of the opportunistic salpingectomy (45%), size of the surgery (44%) and its associated possible disadvantages (37%). In addition, patients attributed their reluctance to concerns about the removal of healthy organs (46%). For professionals, main barriers were: patients' lack of knowledge of the size of surgery (85%) and its associated possible disadvantages (77%), the gap in evidence on long term risks and benefits (43%), the lack of feasibility in certain patients and during vaginal surgery (66%). Both patients (41%) and professionals (67%) identified the need for counselling material as facilitator. CONCLUSION: To reduce the variety in care regarding opportunistic salpingectomy, consensus and uniform counselling is needed. Including the opportunistic salpingectomy in gynecological guidelines and a decision aid for counselling could serve as tools to facilitate implementation.

Functional estrogen receptor signaling pathway activity in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma as compared to estrogen receptor protein expression by immunohistochemistry.

PURPOSE: Anti-estrogen therapy may be used as a palliative treatment option in high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSC). However, clinical implementation is limited as the use of estrogen receptor (ER) protein expression by immunohistochemistry remains insufficient in predicting therapy response. To determine the accuracy of ER protein expression as a marker for ER signaling pathway activity, we aimed to correlate ER protein expression to functional ER signaling pathway activity in HGSC. METHODS: Immunohistochemical ER protein expression was visually scored using total percentages of stained tumor cells and histoscores. Subsequently, mRNA was extracted, and RT-qPCR analysis was performed. Functional ER pathway activity was assessed by a computational Bayesian model inferring ER signaling pathway activity from mRNA levels of ER-specific target genes. RESULTS: Our analysis of 29 HGSCs shows that neither total percentage of ER protein expression, nor ER histoscores are significantly correlated to ER signaling pathway activity (respectively, p = 0.473 and p = 0.606). Classification of HGSC into three groups based on ER histoscores 0-100 (n = 6), 101-200 (n = 15) and 201-300 (n = 8) resulted in comparable mean ER signaling pathway activity among the groups (p = 0.356). Several samples in the higher ER histoscore groups had low ER signaling pathway activity, indicating that nuclear ER protein expression is not sufficient to describe transcriptional ER activation. CONCLUSION: Positive immunohistochemical ER staining is not always indicative of an active ER signaling pathway and is, therefore, a poor predictor of anti-estrogen response. Further research is needed to prove the predictive value of ER signaling pathway activity regarding anti-estrogen sensitivity in HGSC patients.

Hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy alone.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate of all gynaecological malignancies with an overall five-year survival rate of 30% to 40%. In the past two decades it has become apparent and more commonly accepted that a majority of ovarian cancers originate in the fallopian tube epithelium and not from the ovary itself. This paradigm shift introduced new possibilities for ovarian cancer prevention. Salpingectomy during a hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications (also known as opportunistic salpingectomy) might reduce the overall incidence of ovarian cancer. Aside from efficacy, safety is of utmost importance, especially due to the preventive nature of opportunistic salpingectomy. Most important are safety in the form of surgical adverse events and postoperative hormonal status. Therefore, we compared the benefits and risks of hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect and safety of hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy without salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications; outcomes of interest include the incidence of epithelial ovarian cancer, surgery-related adverse events and postoperative ovarian reserve. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two clinical trial registers were searched in January 2019 together with reference checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We intended to include both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared ovarian cancer incidence after hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications. For assessment of surgical and hormonal safety, we included RCTs that compared hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were ovarian cancer incidence, intraoperative and short-term postoperative complication rate and postoperative hormonal status. Secondary outcomes were total surgical time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate to open surgery (applicable only to laparoscopic and vaginal approaches), duration of hospital admission, menopause-related symptoms and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (350 women analysed). The evidence was of very low to low quality: the main limitations being a low number of included women and surgery-related adverse events, substantial loss to follow-up and a large variety in outcome measures and timing of measurements.No studies reported ovarian cancer incidence after hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy compared to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications. For surgery-related adverse events, there were insufficient data to assess whether there was any difference in both intraoperative (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 3.94; 5 studies, 286 participants; very low-quality evidence) and short-term postoperative (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.14; 3 studies, 152 participants; very low-quality evidence) complication rates between hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy and hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy because the number of surgery-related adverse events was very low. For postoperative hormonal status, the results were compatible with no difference, or with a reduction in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) that would not be clinically relevant (mean difference (MD) -0.94, 95% CI -1.89 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 283 participants; low-quality evidence). A reduction in AMH would be unfavourable, but due to wide CIs, the postoperative change in AMH can still vary from a substantial decrease to even a slight increase. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were no eligible studies reporting on one of our primary outcomes - the incidence of ovarian cancer specifically after hysterectomy with or without opportunistic salpingectomy. However, outside the scope of this review there is a growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy itself during other interventions or as a sterilisation technique, strongly suggesting a protective effect. In our meta-analyses, we found insufficient data to assess whether there was any difference in surgical adverse events, with a very low number of events in women undergoing hysterectomy with and without opportunistic salpingectomy. For postoperative hormonal status we found no evidence of a difference between the groups. The maximum difference in time to menopause, calculated from the lower limit of the 95% CI and the natural average AMH decline, would be approximately 20 months, which we consider to be not clinically relevant. However, the results should be interpreted with caution and even more so in very young women for whom a difference in postoperative hormonal status is potentially more clinically relevant. Therefore, there is a need for research on the long-term effects of opportunistic salpingectomy during hysterectomy, particularly in younger women, as results are currently limited to six months postoperatively. This limit is especially important as AMH, the most frequently used marker for ovarian reserve, recovers over the course of several months following an initial sharp decline after surgery. In light of the available evidence, addition of opportunistic salpingectomy should be discussed with each woman undergoing a hysterectomy for benign indication, with provision of a clear overview of benefits and risks.

Factors influencing decision-making around opportunistic salpingectomy: a nationwide survey.

OBJECTIVE: To explore current practice and influencing factors on adoption of the opportunistic salpingectomy (OS), particularly regarding the decision making, to eventually enhance the development and implementation of clear guidelines. METHODS: This nationwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted in all hospitals in the Netherlands. An anonymous online survey was sent to gynecologists with special interest in gynecological oncology, gynecological endoscopy or urogynecology and all Dutch gynecology trainees. The survey mainly focused on current practice regarding OS and identification of influencing factors on the level of innovation, organization, healthcare professional and individual patient. RESULTS: The response rate was 348 out of 597 gynecologists (58.3%) and 142 out of 340 trainees (41.8%). Current practice of discussing and performing the OS varied widely, with ovarian cancer (OC) risk reduction as most important supportive factor on innovation level. Supportive factors on the level of organization and healthcare provider were; working in a non-training hospital, knowledge of current literature and extensive work experience (in years and annual number of hysterectomies). On individual patient level, a vaginal approach of hysterectomy, negative family history for OC and the presence of firm adhesions were suppressive factors for the OS. CONCLUSION: In this study we evaluated the current practice regarding the opportunistic salpingectomy in the Netherlands and identified influencing factors on different levels to raise awareness and attribute to development of a targeted implementation strategy, on both national and international level.