Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40481395›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2025

Risk-reducing salpingectomy: considerations from an OBGYN perspective.

Alexandra Lukey, A Fuchsia Howard, Alice J Mei, Michael R Law, David Huntsman, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Rafael Meza, Gillian E Hanley

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07532434 (A Bidirectional Cohort Study on Prophylactic Resection Surgery in Populations at Moderate-to-High Risk for Hereditary Ovarian Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07532434 recruitingnot on this map

A Bidirectional Cohort Study on Prophylactic Resection Surgery in Populations at Moderate-to-High Risk for Hereditary Ovarian Cancer

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorPeking University Third HospitalRan2025 to 2035Enrolled480ConditionsOvarian Cancer, Breast Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Complications Following Bilateral Salpingectomy by Indication: Population-Based Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    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

8 authors.

Alexandra LukeyFaculty of Medicine, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. alex.lukey@ubc.ca.
A Fuchsia HowardFaculty of Applied Sciences, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Alice J MeiFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Michael R LawFaculty of Medicine, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
David HuntsmanFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Celeste Leigh PearceDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Rafael MezaFaculty of Medicine, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Gillian E HanleyFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. gillian.hanley@ubc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith recent evidence that opportunistic salpingectomy is effective in preventing high grade serous carcinoma, it is imperative to consider the optimal use of this procedure. In this research, we investigated the opinions of obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNS) about the acceptability of using salpingectomy as a stand-alone surgery for people at higher-than-average lifetime risk (but without a pathogenic variant that increases risk for ovarian cancer) known as ‘risk-reducing salpingectomy’(RRS).

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled practicing OBGYNs in the province of British Columbia, Canada. We used qualitative interpretive description with inductive thematic analysis for data analysis. Our work was informed by the theoretical framework of acceptability.

resultsThe nineteen participants included physicians from both general obstetrics and gynecology practices, as well as subspecialties. OBGYNs generally found RRS to be acceptable, though this acceptability was conditional on clinical, patient, and system-level factors. Five major themes suggest that: (1) There are risks and benefits of RRS, that if balanced might support acceptability; (2) It is important to define and identify the correct patient for RRS; (3) OBGYNs value patient autonomy in the decision to undergo RRS; (4) Reproductive justice and equity are intertwined and influenced by the history of forced and coerced sterilization; and (5) Formal guidance and the right environment are enablers of RRS.

conclusionsThis work provides initial evidence that, from the OBGYN perspective, RRS is acceptable in the right patient population, with considerations from those practicing on the front lines of ovarian cancer prevention.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsSalpingectomyAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelBritish ColumbiaFemaleGynecologistsHumansMaleMiddle AgedObstetriciansRisk Reduction BehaviorAcceptabilityBilateral salpingectomyCancer preventionOvarian cancerRisk-reducing salpingectomy

Identifiers

PMID40481395
PMCPMC12142881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.