In May 2016, the Division of Cancer Prevention and the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, convened a workshop to discuss a conceptual framework for identifying and genetically testing previously diagnosed but unreferred patients with ovarian cancer and other unrecognized BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers to improve the detection of families at risk for breast or ovarian cancer. The concept, designated Traceback, was prompted by the recognition that although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are frequent in women with ovarian cancer, many such women have not been tested, especially if their diagnosis predated changes in testing guidelines. The failure to identify mutation carriers among probands represents a lost opportunity to prevent cancer in unsuspecting relatives through risk-reduction intervention in mutation carriers and to provide appropriate reassurances to noncarriers. The Traceback program could provide an important opportunity to reach families from racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups who historically have not sought or been offered genetic counseling and testing and thereby contribute to a reduction in health disparities in women with germline BRCA mutations. To achieve an interdisciplinary perspective, the workshop assembled international experts in genetics, medical and gynecologic oncology, clinical psychology, epidemiology, genomics, cost-effectiveness modeling, pathology, bioethics, and patient advocacy to identify factors to consider when undertaking a Traceback program. This report highlights the workshop deliberations with the goal of stimulating research and providing a framework for pilot studies to assess the feasibility and ethical and logistical considerations related to the development of best practices for implementation of Traceback studies.

BackgroundRisk-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.MethodsA 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02321228)

No abstract

Background BRCA1/2 mutation carriers’ choice between risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) and salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is very complex. Aim was to develop a patient decision aid that combines evidence with patient preferences to facilitate decision making.DesignSystematic development of a patient decision aid in an iterative process of prototype development, alpha testing by patients and clinicians and revisions using International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria. Information was based on the available literature and current guidelines. A multidisciplinary steering group supervised the process.Setting and participantsPre‐menopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers choosing between RRSO and salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in Family Cancer Clinics in the Netherlands.Main outcome measuresIPDAS quality criteria, relevance, usability, clarity.ResultsThe patient decision aid underwent four rounds of alpha testing and revisions. Finally, two paper decision aids were developed: one for BRCA1 and one for BRCA2. They both contained a general introduction, three chapters and a step‐by‐step plan containing a personal value clarification worksheet. During alpha testing, risk communication and information about premature menopause and hormone therapy were the most revised items. The patient decision aids fulfil 37 of 43 (86%) IPDAS criteria for content and development process.Discussion and conclusionsBoth BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and professionals are willing to use or offer the developed patient decision aids for risk‐reducing surgery. The patient decision aids have been found clear, balanced and comprehensible. Future testing among patients facing the decision should point out its effectiveness in improving decision making.

Metachronous peritoneal carcinomatosis after risk-reducing surgery occurs predominantly in BRCA1 mutation carriers, usually within 5 years. Data have suggested that surgery at a younger age lowers the rates of peritoneal carcinomatosis. These data can be used in the gynecologic counseling of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. RRSO should include complete salpingectomy. Detailed histopathological examination of specimens removed during RRSO is essential. Cancer 2018;124:952-9. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

IMPORTANCEMost women with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant undergo premature menopause with potential short-and long-term morbidity due to the current method of ovarian carcinoma prevention: risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Because the fallopian tubes play a key role in ovarian cancer pathogenesis, salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy may be a novel risk-reducing strategy with benefits of delaying menopause.OBJECTIVE To compare menopause-related quality of life after risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS) with delayed oophorectomy with RRSO in carriers of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA multicenter nonrandomized controlled preference trial (TUBA study), with patient recruitment between January 16, 2015, and November 7, 2019, and follow-up at 3 and 12 months after surgery was conducted in all Dutch university hospitals and a few large general hospitals. In the Netherlands, RRSO is predominantly performed in these hospitals. Patients at the clinical genetics or gynecology department between the ages of 25 and 40 years (BRCA1) or 25 to 45 years (BRCA2) who were premenopausal, had completed childbearing, and were undergoing no current treatment for cancer were eligible.INTERVENTIONS Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy at currently recommended age or RRS after completed childbearing with delayed oophorectomy. After RRSO was performed, hormone replacement therapy was recommended for women without contraindications. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESMenopause-related quality of life as assessed by the Greene Climacteric Scale, with a higher scale sum (range, 0-63) representing more climacteric symptoms. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, sexual functioning and distress, cancer worry, decisional regret, and surgical outcomes.RESULTS A total of 577 women (mean [SD] age, 37.2 [3.5] years) were enrolled: 297 (51.5%) were pathogenic BRCA1 variant carriers and 280 (48.5%) were BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. At the time of analysis, 394 patients had undergone RRS and 154 had undergone RRSO. Without hormone replacement therapy, the adjusted mean increase from the baseline score on the Greene Climacteric Scale was 6.7 (95% CI, 5.0-8.4; P < .001) points higher during 1 year after RRSO than after RRS. After RRSO with hormone replacement therapy, the difference was 3.6 points (95% CI, 2.3-4.8; P < .001) compared with RRS.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that patients have better menopause-related quality of life after RRS than after RRSO, regardless of hormone replacement therapy. An international follow-up study is currently evaluating the oncologic safety of this therapy.

No abstract

No abstract