Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

“Best practices in risk reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: the influence of surgical specialty”

  • Dominique R. Malacarne1Email author,
  • Leslie R. Boyd1,
  • Yang Long1 and
  • Stephanie V. Blank1
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201715:218

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-017-1282-5

Received: 7 September 2016

Accepted: 23 November 2017

Published: 11 December 2017

Abstract

Background

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) increases survival in patients at high risk of developing ovarian cancer. While many general gynecologists perform this procedure, some argue it should be performed exclusively by specialists. In this retrospective observational study, we identified how often optimal techniques were used and whether surgeons’ training impacted implementation.

Methods

We used the ACOG guidelines highlighting various aspects of the procedure to determine which elements were consistent with best practices to maximize surgical prophylaxis. All cases of RRBSO from 2006 to 2010 were identified. We abstracted data from the operative and pathology reports to review the techniques employed. Fisher’s exact test and chi-square were utilized to compare differences between groups (InStat, La Jolla, CA).

Results

Among 263 RRBSOs, 22 were performed by general gynecologists and 241 by gynecologic oncologists. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to perform pelvic washings—217/241 vs. 10/22 (p < .0001). They were more likely to include a description of the upper abdomen—220/241 vs. 12/22 (p < .0001). Oncologists were more likely to utilize a retroperitoneal approach to skeletonize the infundibulopelvic ligaments—157/241 vs. 3/22 (p < .0001). When operations were performed by oncologists, the specimens were more often completely sectioned—217/241 vs. 16/22 (p = .003). The use of a retroperitoneal approach among gynecologic oncologists increased over the study period (chi-square for trend, p < .0001). There was no visible trend in performance improvement in any other area when looking at either group.

Conclusion

Gynecologic oncologists are more likely to adhere to best practice techniques when performing RRBSO, though there was room for improvement for both groups.

Keywords

Best practicesBRCABSOOptimal prophylaxisRisk reduction

Background

Women carrying a deleterious mutation in the BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 genes have an elevated risk of developing ovarian, fallopian tube, and breast malignancies in their lifetimes [13]. While breast cancer screening has been shown to result in early detection of breast cancer, there is no effective, non-invasive screening strategy to detect ovarian or tubal cancer and thereby decrease the cancer incidence in this high-risk group. Though extreme, surgical prophylaxis after completion of childbearing is a recommended strategy for decreasing cancer risk in these women [4]. Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) has been shown to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer by over 80% in women with a BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutation [57]. RRBSO is the most effective means of decreasing the incidence of carcinoma as well as mortality associated with this malignancy in this high-risk population [8, 9].

Optimal techniques for RRBSO have been defined [1015]. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommends obtaining peritoneal washings, surveying the entire abdomen, entering the retroperitoneal space to ensure removal of all adnexal tissue, removing fallopian tubes at their uterine insertion point, and serially sectioning all specimens during pathological evaluation [4]. Similarly, ACOG recommends that “Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy … should include careful inspection of the peritoneal cavity, pelvic washings, removal of the fallopian tubes, and ligation of the ovarian vessels at the pelvic brim. If hysterectomy is not performed, care must be taken to completely remove the fallopian tubes to the level of the cornu.” ACOG and Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) similarly recommend that adnexal specimens be sectioned in 2–3 mm sections, for pathologic examination [4, 16]. These systematic methods have been shown to increase detection of early neoplastic changes and occult malignancy at the time of risk-reducing surgery [10, 14, 17]. The reported rates for detection of occult malignancy vary widely, from 0.6 to 18.5% [1823], and it is possible that this variation is related to differences in surgical technique.

At our institution, we care for a large population of women with a genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, many of whom choose to undergo RRBSO. Both general gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists perform these procedures. We hypothesized that, because of their specialized training, gynecologic oncologists are more likely to adhere to practices that provide optimal prophylaxis for patients undergoing RRBSO. In this study, we evaluated how often ideal practices were followed and if the surgeon’s training was related to implementation.

Methods

The study was reviewed by and run under the auspices of the NYU School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. All cases of RRBSO performed from 2006 to 2010 at NYU Langone Medical Center were identified through billing records by cross-referencing patients undergoing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (either alone or in conjunction with hysterectomy) and those with a personal or family history of breast cancer (V10.3 or V16.3), family history of ovarian cancer (V16.41), or genetic predisposition to ovarian or breast cancer (V84.02 or V84.01). All surgeries were verified using both surgical and pathological reports. A patient record was eligible for inclusion if RRBSO had been performed. Patients were included if there was either a documented mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 or a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer as documented by the operating surgeon or a genetic counselor. In our population, a “strong family history” was determined based on whether patients met the standard criteria for BRCA testing. Patients with known gynecological cancer, suspected gynecologic pathology as the indication for their surgery (e.g., abnormal ultrasound), or those without complete operative reports were excluded.

The type of surgeon (gynecologic oncologist vs. general gynecologist) and date of procedure were recorded. Operative reports were examined for the following documentation, based on best practice guidelines for RRBSO as stated in ACOG Practice Bulletin #89: were pelvic washings performed; was the upper abdomen inspected; were the peritoneal surfaces inspected; and was a retroperitoneal approach used to skeletonize the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligament [4, 16]. The pathology report for each patient was reviewed to determine if the applicable preoperative diagnosis was noted and if proper processing occurred. Since November 2005, the gynecologic pathology department at our institution has followed a standardized protocol for all adnexal specimens sent as risk-reducing surgical specimens. These include serial evaluation of the entire ovary and fallopian tubes with sectioning at 2–3 mm intervals, as compared to representative sections which are the practice when risk-reducing processing is not indicated. Fisher’s exact test and chi-squared tests were utilized to compare differences between surgeries performed by general gynecologists vs. gynecologic oncologists (InStat, La Jolla, CA). p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Two hundred ninety patients were originally identified for eligibility, of which 263 were evaluable. Twenty-seven patients were excluded from further study due to incorrect identification of surgery type (25) or incomplete medical record (2). BRCA mutation status was documented for each case, and the demographic characteristics of each group are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Demographics by surgeon group

Demographic data

General gynecologist (n = 22)

Gynecologic oncologist (n = 241)

p value

Age (mean, SD)

51.6 (8.78)

49.1 (8.93)

0.2

Parity (mean, SD)

1.45(1.36)

1.31(1.29)

0.6

BMI (mean, SD)

26.1 (5.83)

25.9 (5.31)

0.8

Personal Hx of Breast CA (n, %)

14 (64)

179 (74)

0.3

1st degree relative with breast CA (n, %)

10 (45)

106 (44)

0.9

Known genetic mutation (n, %)

9 (41)

104 (43)

0.9

BRCA mutation status

 BRCA1+ (n, %)

1 (4)

47 (20)

0.09

 BRCA2+ (n, %)

3 (14)

36 (15)

1.0

 BRCA+, type not specified (n, %)

2 (9)

9 (4)

0.23

 BRCA negative (n, %)

0

1 (1)

1.0

 BRCA unknown (n, %)

16 (73)

148 (60)

0.3

Among 263 RRBSOs, 22 were performed by general gynecologists and 241 by gynecologic oncologists. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to perform pelvic washings 217/241 (90%) when compared to generalists 10/22 (45%, p < .0001). They were also more likely to include a description of the upper abdomen in the operative report 220/241 (91%) vs. 12/22 of general gynecologists (55%, p < .0001). Oncologists were more likely to utilize a retroperitoneal approach to skeletonize the IP ligaments 157/241 (65%) when compared to generalists (3/22, 14%, p < .0001).

When surgeries were performed by oncologists, the ovaries and fallopian tubes were more likely to be completely sectioned—217/241 (90%) vs. 16/22 (73%, p = .003, Fig. 1). The use of a retroperitoneal approach among gynecologic oncologists increased over the study period when analyzed by year. 12/26, 44/76, 27/59, 47/55, and 25/25 cases were thus performed in the years 2006 through 2010, respectively (chi-square for trend, p < .0001, Fig. 2). There was no visible trend in the performance of these parameters over time when evaluating the general gynecologist group (Fig. 3).
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Percentage of RRBSO techniques performed, by level of training

Figure 2
Fig. 2

The percentage of each technique used by gynecologic oncologists when performing RRBSO, by year

Figure 3
Fig. 3

The percentage of each technique used by general gynecologist when performing RRBSO, by year

Additionally, we analyzed how often each surgeon group adhered to best practices globally. Only 2 of the 22 procedures (9%) performed by generalists were found to comply with all suggested RRBSO techniques. In comparison, 41% of all RRBSOs performed by gynecologic oncologists had complete adherence, and the trend toward complete adherence was statistically significant when analyzed by year (p < .0004, Fig. 4).
Figure 4
Fig. 4

Trend in gynecologic oncologist adherence to all best practice techniques

Seven patients had occult malignancy noted on the final pathology, all of whom had surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists. This represents a 2.6% incidence of occult carcinoma in our prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy specimens. Table 2 lists surgery characteristics for each of these patients, as well as final pathology and prognosis. Three patients possessed a deleterious BRCA mutation (two with BRCA 1, one patient with BRCA 2). All three of these patients were diagnosed with primary fallopian tube cancer at the time of RRBSO. All three of these patients underwent an additional staging operation, followed by chemotherapy. Of the four patients with unknown mutation status, metastatic breast cancer was the diagnosis on final specimen pathology in three instances. Two of these patients had already been diagnosed with metastatic disease (either to lymphatics or bone). Lastly, one patient was diagnosed with a Leydig cell tumor of the ovary. All seven patients were diagnosed based on pathology specimens. No pelvic washings that were submitted were found to be positive for malignancy. Patients were followed through 2017. Of the three patients with diagnoses of fallopian tube cancer at the time of RRBSO, all have been free of malignancy since the time of diagnosis. There have been no known deaths. Two of the three patients with metastatic disease went on to have further progression of disease (Table 2).
Table 2

Characteristics of patients diagnosed with occult malignancy

Patient

Mutation status

Age

Diagnosis

Prognosis

1

Unknown

45

Metastatic breast cancer to ovary (dx at RRBSO 2007)

Patient last seen 2011: diagnosis right femoral head metastases 2010 s/p XRT

2

Unknown

54

Leydig cell tumor of the ovary

Patient last seen 2012: no evidence of disease

3

Unknown

43

Metastatic breast cancer to ovary (known metastases to lymph nodes)

Lost to follow-up

4

Unknown

45

Metastatic breast cancer to ovary (known metastases to bone)

2010: new bone metastases; 2012: extensive bone mets, vertebral body compression fractures; 2017: stable lesions, on denosumab

5

BRCA1+

44

Papillary serous carcinoma of the fallopian tube

s/p 3 cycles carboplatin; no evidence of disease since 2009

6

BRCA+

44

Papillary serous carcinoma of the fallopian tube

s/p 6 cycles carboplatin/Taxol; no evidence of disease since 2009

7

BRCA2+

68

Papillary serous carcinoma of the fallopian tube

s/p carboplatin/Taxol × 3 cycles; no evidence of disease since 2007

Discussion

At our institution, having specialty training was more likely to be associated with adherence to ideal practices for risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). Further, practice improvement over time was noted for those cases performed by gynecologic oncologists, although ideal compliance remained around 40% for this group. Alternatively, there was no similar trend when analyzing the generalists’ surgical practices. This finding is likely secondary to the increased awareness of the surgical issues pertinent to these cases among gynecologic oncologists. This also highlights the importance of further awareness and proper training among all providers performing RRBSO. In many parts of the world, specialists may not be accessible, and proper training of generalists is imperative if correctly performed RRBSO is to be widely accessible.

At our hospital a particular effort was made to formalize practices for pathologists sectioning these specimens; however, no formal training was instituted for the surgeons. Some of the aspects required to conform to ideal practices do not require specific surgical technique, e.g., correct documentation on the pathology request to ensure use of the “risk-reducing protocol” for specimen sectioning. Prior to performing these procedures, the pathologist should be consulted. If the required sectioning cannot be instituted, patients need to be referred to alternative institutions where this practice is standard, as new evidence further supports that this technique increases diagnosis of microscopic malignancy, and may even aid in the identification of premalignant conditions in certain populations [24, 25]. Other aspects, such as ensuring that the infundibulopelvic ligament is dissected a sufficient distance from the ovary, may be challenging. Although ACOG does not recommend a retroperitoneal approach specifically, this may, in fact, be the safest way to confirm transection of the IP ligament at the pelvic brim. In these situations, patients should be referred appropriately. RRBSO should only be performed under circumstances in which compliance with all elements of best practice can be expected preoperatively.

The use of peritoneal lavage at the time of prophylactic surgery for high-risk women has been previously reviewed [10, 11, 21, 22]. Now that we implement close sectioning of the ovaries and fallopian tubes, cytology may play a less important role. We found it was uninformative in our small sample.

There are several limitations to this study. This is a single-institution, retrospective study, and therefore, its applicability to other institutions is unknown. Although we evaluated over 250 cases, the cases performed by general gynecologists made up a relatively small number. Additionally, we do not have consistent follow-up data on patients to determine the incidence of post-BSO primary peritoneal cancer and therefore cannot comment as to whether lack of adherence to best practices resulted in worse outcomes. Despite this, we believe there are clear trends shown in our data which warrant further investigation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that gynecologic oncologists were more likely to adhere to ideal practices for risk-reducing BSO. Guidelines published by both ACOG and SGO outline similar best practice techniques and acknowledge that this procedure can be performed by either generalists or gynecologic oncologists. In many geographic areas, patients will have better access to general gynecologists [26]. Greater efforts to educate providers about best practices may be warranted. Dedicated education on RRBSO techniques could be implemented to optimize the performance of this important and potentially life-saving procedure by all practitioners that offer it.

Notes

Abbreviations

BSO: 

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

RRBSO: 

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, NYU School of Medicine. There was no funding used for collection, synthesis, and analysis of data as PI and other investigators collaborated on this during their own research time.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact the authors for data requests.

Authors’ contributions

DRM participated in the design of the study, helped to finalize and analyze the database, and drafted the manuscript. LRB participated in the design of the study, statistical analysis, and helped to draft the manuscript. YL created the database and helped to edit the manuscript. SVB conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, and helped to edit the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was reviewed by and run under the auspices of the NYU School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. The study reference number is 07-569. The IRB protocol was approved and the waiver of consent was also approved, as this was a retrospective study looking at a de-identified database, so consent was not required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA

References

  1. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:676–89.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science (New York, NY). 2003;302:643–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1401–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kauff ND. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Clinical Practice Committee Statement on Prophylactic Salpingo-oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;98:179–81.Google Scholar
  5. 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;346:1609–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al. Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2006;296:185–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. 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;101:80–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Neuhausen SL, et al. Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:223–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Guillem JG, Wood WC, Moley JF, et al. ASCO/SSO review of current role of risk-reducing surgery in common hereditary cancer syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:4642–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Agoff N. Unexpected gynecologic neoplasms in patients with proven or suspected BRCA-1 or −2 mutations. Implications for gross examination, cytology, and clinical follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:171–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Colgan TJ, Boerner SL, Murphy J, Cole DEC, Narod S, Rosen B. Peritoneal lavage cytology: an assessment of its value during prophylactic oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85:397–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kauff ND, Barakat RR. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in patients with germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:2921–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Powell CB, Chen LM, McLennan J, 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 : J Intern Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2011;21:846–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Powell CB, Kenley E, Chen LM, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carriers: role of serial sectioning in the detection of occult malignancy. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:127–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Rabban JT, Krasik E, Chen LM, Powell CB, Crawford B, Zaloudek CJ. Multistep level sections to detect occult fallopian tube carcinoma in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies from women with BRCA mutations: implications for defining an optimal specimen dissection protocol. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:1878–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 89. Elective and risk-reducing salpingo- oophorectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:231–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. McEwen AR, McConnell DT, Kenwright DN, Gaskell DJ, Cherry A, Kidd AM. Occult cancer of the fallopian tube in a BRCA2 germline mutation carrier at prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92:992–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Colgan TJMJ, Cole DE, Narod S, Rosen B. Occult carcinoma in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens: prevalence and association with BRCA germline mutation status. Americal J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:1283–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Carcangiu ML, Peissel B, Pasini B, Spatti G, Radice P, Manoukian S. Incidental carcinomas in prophylactic specimens in BRCA1 and BRCA2 germ-line mutation carriers, with emphasis on fallopian tube lesions: report of 6 cases and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:1222–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Garber JE, et al. Occult ovarian cancers identified at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124:195–203.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Finch A, Shaw P, Rosen B, Murphy J, Narod SA, Colgan TJ. Clinical and pathologic findings of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomies in 159 BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:58–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Leeper K, Garcia R, Swisher E, Goff B, Greer B, Paley P. Pathologic findings in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens in high-risk women. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87:52–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. KH L, Garber JE, Cramer DW, et al. Occult ovarian tumors in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations undergoing prophylactic oophorectomy. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2000;18:2728–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene MH, Piedmonte M, Alberts D, et al. A prospective study of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and longitudinal CA-125 screening among women at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer: design and baseline characteristics: a gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev.: public Am Assoc Cancer Res., cosponsored Am. Soc. Prev. Oncol. 2008;17:594–604.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. DiBenedetto L, Giovanale V, Donatella C. Endometrial tubal metaplasia in a young puerperal woman after breast cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(6):7610–3.Google Scholar
  26. Stewart SL, Cooney D, Hisch S, et al. Effect of gynecologic oncologist availability on ovarian cancer mortality. WJOG. 2014;3(2):71–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement