Abstract
This guideline reviews the potential benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy to prevent the development of high grade serous cancers (HGSC) of the ovary/fallopian tube/peritoneum based on current evidence supporting the fallopian tube origin of disease. Gynaecologists, obstetricians, family doctors, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, residents, and health care providers. Adult women (18 and older): OPTIONS: Women considering hysterectomy who wish to retain their ovaries in situ have traditionally also retained their fallopian tubes. In addition, women undergoing permanent surgical sterilization have usually undergone tubal ligation using various methods rather than undergoing surgical removal of the entire fallopian tube. For the sections "Evidence Supporting the Hypothesis That HGSC Originates in the Fallopian Tube" and "Current Literature on the Effects and Safety of Opportunistic Salpingectomy," relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Systematic Reviews using the following terms, either alone or in combination, with the search limited to English language materials: "high grade serous cancers ovary," "fallopian tube," "peritoneum," "opportunistic salpingectomy," "epithelial ovarian cancers," "origin," "tubal carcinoma in situ," "BRCA mutation," "prophylactic salpingectomy," "inflammation," "clear cell," and "endometrioid." The initial search was performed in March 2015 with a final literature search in March 2016. Relevant evidence was selected for inclusion in the following order: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, observational studies, non-systematic reviews, case series, and reports. The total number of studies identified was 458, and 56 studies were included in this review. For the section "Other Factors Influencing the Risk of Developing "Ovarian" Cancers" a general Medline search was carried out using the terms "ovarian neoplasm" and "prevention." The search included papers published from December 2005 to March 2016. Meta-analyses were preferentially selected except where no such review was found. Additional searches for each subheading were also conducted (e.g., "ovarian neoplasm" and "tubal ligation.") Additional significant articles were identified through cross-referencing the identified reviews. For the search for "ovarian neoplasm" and "prevention," 10meta-analyses were identified. For the search for "ovarian neoplasm" and "tubal ligation," an additional 4 meta-analyses were identified. The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed on by the principal authors. The Executive and Board of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada reviewed the content and submitted comments for consideration, and the Board of the SOGC approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology framework (Table1). The interpretation of strong and weak recommendations is described in Table2. The summary of findings is available on request. The addition of opportunistic salpingectomy to a planned hysterectomy or permanent sterilization did not increase rates of hospital readmission (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10 and OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.21, respectively) or blood transfusions (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10 and OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.73, respectively) but did increase the overall operating time (by 16 minutes and 10 minutes, respectively) in a retrospective review of 43 931 women. The riskof repeat surgery for tubal pathology among women with retained fallopian tubes after hysterectomy was at least doubled (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.42 in a population-based study of 170 000 women). If general gynaecologists were to consider removal of fallopian tubes at the time of every hysterectomy and sterilization procedure with referral of all patients with HGSC for hereditary cancer counselling and genetic testing, experts project a potential reduction in the rate of HGSC by 40% over the next 20years. Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to decide whether all or part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations. This guideline was developed with resources funded by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada and SOGC. RECOMMENDATIONS.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.