ArticleCancer research communications2025
Evaluating Ovarian Cancer Risk-Reducing Salpingectomy Acceptance: A Survey.
Article in Cancer research communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractWith evidence that salpingectomy is effective in preventing high-grade serous carcinoma, it is time to consider offering this procedure to people at higher-than-average lifetime risk for ovarian cancer, despite not having a pathogenic genetic variant that increases the risk for ovarian cancer. This targeted approach has potential to be effective at reducing ovarian cancer incidence, and unlike opportunistic salpingectomy, it is focused on people with an increased lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. However, the acceptability of this approach within the population of potential patients remains unknown. We conducted an online survey of adults in British Columbia, Canada, who were defined as “at risk” for ovarian cancer (i.e., people born with ovaries). Participants completed a questionnaire on demographics, ovarian cancer risk and protective factors, concerns about risk-reducing salpingectomy (RSS), and the risk they considered high enough to warrant RRS. We included 211 participants. Among these participants, 42% (n = 88) indicated that they would consider RRS at any lifetime risk or any risk above the population average. Another 20 participants chose risks between 1.5% and 4% for a cumulative 51% of the sample choosing risks below thresholds for oophorectomy. In contrast, 6% (n = 12) indicated that they would not consider the procedure at any risk level. None of the factors collected were associated with the likelihood that a person would find RRS acceptable. Overall, our participants showed broad interest in RRS as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. These results suggest that there would likely be uptake if RRS was offered. SIGNIFICANCE: This study found that many participants were willing to consider RRS to prevent ovarian cancer. Further research on RRS should be undertaken to understand how this can be best used for ovarian cancer prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.