Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28285341›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2017

Improved quality of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in Australasian women at high risk of pelvic serous cancer.

Y C Lee, M Bressel, P Grant, P Russell, C Smith, S Picken, S Camm, B E Kiely, R L Milne, S A McLachlan and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Recommendations for diagnosing STIC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. The Effect of Prophylactic Adnexectomy on the Quality of Life and Psychosocial Functioning of Women with theInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Y C LeeDivision of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
M BresselCentre of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials (BaCT) Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
P GrantDepartment of Gynaecology and Oncology, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
P RussellDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
C SmithResearch Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
S PickenResearch Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
S CammResearch Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
B E KielyNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
R L MilneCancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
S A McLachlanDepartment of Oncology, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
M HickeyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne and the Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
M L FriedlanderDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
J L HopperCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
K A PhillipsDivision of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Kelly.phillips@petermac.org.
Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe quality of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) performed in Australasian women was previously reported to be suboptimal. Here we describe the quality of RRSO performed since 2008 in women enrolled in the same cohort and determine whether it has improved.

designProspective cohort study of women at high risk of pelvic serous cancer (PSC) in kConFab. Eligible women had RRSO between 2008 and 2014 and their RRSO surgical and pathology reports were reviewed. "Adequate" surgery and pathology were defined as complete removal and paraffin embedding of all ovarian and extra-uterine fallopian tube tissue, respectively. Associations between clinical factors and "adequate" pathology were assessed using logistic regression. Data were compared with published cohort data on RRSO performed prior to 2008 using Chi square test.

resultsOf 164 contemporary RRSOs performed in 78 centres, 158/159 (99%) had "adequate" surgery and 108/164 (66%) had "adequate" pathology. Surgery performed by a gynaecologic oncologist rather than a general gynaecologist [OR 8.2, 95%CI (3.6-20.4), p < 0.001], surgery without concurrent hysterectomy [OR 2.5, 95%CI (1.1-6.0), p = 0.03], more recent year of surgery [OR 1.4, 95%CI (1.1-1.8), p = 0.02], and clinical notation that indicated high risk [OR 19.4, 95%CI (3.1-385), p = 0.008] were independently associated with "adequate" pathology. Both surgery and pathology were significantly more likely to be "adequate" (p < 0.001) in this contemporary sample.

conclusionThe quality of RRSOs has significantly improved since our last report. Surgery by a gynaecologic oncologist who informs the pathologist that the woman is at high risk for PSC is associated with optimal RRSO pathology.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAustraliaCystadenocarcinoma, SerousFallopian Tube NeoplasmsFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2HeterozygoteHumansMiddle AgedNew ZealandOncologistsOvarian NeoplasmsProphylactic Surgical ProceduresProspective StudiesBRCA1 mutation carrierBRCA2 mutation carrierOvarian cancer preventionPelvic serous cancerRisk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy

Identifiers

PMID28285341
PMCPMC5603648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.