Volume 119, Issue 5 p. 527-536
Gynaecological oncology

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

R Manchanda

R Manchanda

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Search for more papers by this author
M Burnell

M Burnell

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Search for more papers by this author
A Abdelraheim

A Abdelraheim

Barts Cancer Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, El Minia University Hospitals, El Minia, Egypt

Search for more papers by this author
M Johnson

M Johnson

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Search for more papers by this author
A Sharma

A Sharma

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Search for more papers by this author
E Benjamin

E Benjamin

Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute, Rockefeller Building, UCL, London

Search for more papers by this author
C Brunell

C Brunell

Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital (UCLH), London

Search for more papers by this author
E Saridogan

E Saridogan

Department of Gynaecology, UCLH, London

Search for more papers by this author
S Gessler

S Gessler

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Search for more papers by this author
D Oram

D Oram

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, El Minia University Hospitals, El Minia, Egypt

Search for more papers by this author
L Side

L Side

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Search for more papers by this author
AN Rosenthal

AN Rosenthal

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, El Minia University Hospitals, El Minia, Egypt

Search for more papers by this author
I Jacobs

I Jacobs

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

These authors made an equal contribution to this study.

Search for more papers by this author
U Menon

U Menon

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London

These authors made an equal contribution to this study.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 20 January 2012
Citations: 50
Dr R Manchanda, Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, First floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7NF, UK. Email [email protected]

Abstract

Please cite this paper as: Manchanda R, Burnell M, Abdelraheim A, Johnson M, Sharma A, Benjamin E, Brunell C, Saridogan E, Gessler S, Oram D, Side L, Rosenthal A, Jacobs I, Menon U. 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;119:527–536.

Objective To evaluate factors affecting uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) over time in women at high-risk of familial ovarian cancer.

Design Prospective observational cohort.

Setting Tertiary high-risk familial gynaecological cancer clinic.

Population/sample New clinic attendees between March 2004 and November 2009, fulfilling the high-risk criteria for the UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study.

Methods Risk management options discussed included RRSO and ovarian surveillance. Outcome data were analysed from a bespoke database. The competing risk method was used to model the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of RRSO over time, and the sub-hazard ratio (SHR) was used to assess the strength of the association of variables of interest with RRSO. Gray’s test was used to evaluate the difference in CIF between two groups and multivariable competing risk regression analysis was used to model the cumulative probabilities of covariates on the CIF.

Results Of 1133 eligible women, 265 (21.4%) opted for RRSO and 868 (69.9%) chose screening. Women undergoing RRSO were older (49 years, interquartile range 12.2 years) than those preferring screening (43.4 years, interquartile range 11.9 years) (P < 0.0005). The CIF for RRSO at 5 years was 0.55 (95% CI 0.45–0.64) for BRCA1/2 carriers and 0.22 (95% CI 0.19–0.26) for women of unknown mutation status (P < 0.0001); 0.42 (95% CI 0.36–0.47) for postmenopausal women (P < 0.0001); 0.29 (95% CI 0.25–0.33) for parity ≥1 (P = 0.009) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.39–0.55) for a personal history of breast cancer (P < 0.0001). Variables of significance from the regression analysis were: a BRCA1/2 mutation (SHR 2.31, 95% CI 1.7–3.14), postmenopausal status (SHR 2.16, 95% CI 1.62–2.87)) and a personal history of breast cancer (SHR 1.5, 95% CI 1.09–2.06).

Conclusions Decision-making is a complex process and women opt for surgery many years after initial risk assessment. BRCA carriers, postmenopausal women and women who had breast cancer are significantly more likely to opt for preventative surgery.