Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25586903›Full record

ReviewCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2015

Salpingectomy as a means to reduce ovarian cancer risk.

Mary B Daly, Charles W Dresher, Melinda S Yates, Joanne M Jeter, Beth Y Karlan, David S Alberts, Karen H Lu

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy alone.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mary B DalyDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mary.Daly@fccc.edu.
Charles W DresherDepartment of Translational Outcomes Research Group of the Translational Research Program of the Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Melinda S YatesDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Joanne M JeterDepartment of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Beth Y KarlanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
David S AlbertsUniversity of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona.
Karen H LuDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Arizona · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USFox Chase Cancer Center · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · US

Funding

Vaccinating against IGFBP-2 to prevent ovarian cancer relapseP50CA083636 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI DRESCHER, CHARLES, URBAN, NICOLE DENISE · 1999 to 2015
$35.1M
Therapeutic Micro RNA Strategies for Ovarian CancerP50CA083638 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI GODWIN, ANDREW K., GOLEMIS, ERICA A. · 1999 to 2013
$33.6M
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON SPORE IN OVARIAN CANCERP50CA083639 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BAST, ROBERT C · 1999 to 2015
$33.0M
Targeting the PI3K Signaling Pathway in Endometrial CarcinomaP50CA098258 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BODURKA, DIANE · 2003 to 2020
$32.0M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA083636NCI NIH HHS P50 CA083638NCI NIH HHS P50 CA083639NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) has become the standard-of-care for risk reduction in women at hereditary risk of ovarian cancer. Although this procedure significantly decreases both the incidence of and mortality from ovarian cancer, it affects quality of life, and the premature cessation of ovarian function may have long-term health hazards. Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular pathways of ovarian cancer point to the fallopian tube epithelium as the origin of most high-grade serous cancers (HGSC). This evolving appreciation of the role of the fallopian tube in HGSC has led to the consideration of salpingectomy alone as an option for risk management, especially in premenopausal women. In addition, it is postulated that bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian retention (BSOR), may have a public health benefit for women undergoing benign gynecologic surgery. In this review, we provide the rationale for salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer risk reduction strategy.

Indexed as

Prophylactic Surgical ProceduresCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialOvarian NeoplasmsRisk FactorsRisk Reduction BehaviorSalpingectomy

Identifiers

PMID25586903
PMCPMC4417454
OpenAlexW2013494881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.