Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42804048›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in patients with gBRCA-mutated breast cancer.

Niklas Amann, Kim Wagner, Philipp Ziegler, Annika Krückel, Lena Brückner, Julia Gocke, Carolin Müller, Christoph Runz, Felix Heindl, C Carolin Hack and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Niklas AmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany. niklas.amann@uk-erlangen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5280-2800
Kim WagnerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Philipp ZieglerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Annika KrückelDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Lena BrücknerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Julia GockeDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Carolin MüllerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Christoph RunzDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Felix HeindlDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
C Carolin HackDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Julius EmonsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
A Peter FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
W Matthias BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Manuel HörnerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreast cancer (BC) patients with pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations (gBRCA1/2mut) have a substantially increased risk of ovarian cancer (OC). Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) remains the only effective preventive strategy. However, data on the utilization and time to RRSO in gBRCAmut BC patients are limited.

methodsThis retrospective study included 148 patients with gBRCA1/2mut BC treated at the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Center, University Hospital Erlangen, between 2012 and 2024. Clinical, pathological, treatment-related, and genetic data were collected and analyzed from electronic records. Time to RRSO at date of BC surgery was calculated for all patients, and stratified according guideline recommendations for RRSO, using the Kaplan-Meier method.

resultsIn this cohort of 148 patients with gBRCAmut BC, 60.8% harbored a gBRCA1 and 39.2% a gBRCA2 mutation. BC was diagnosed at the mean age of 47.1 years, 73.6% presenting at UICC stage I-II. 47.9% of patients presented with triple-negative BC, 38.4% of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative BC and 8.9% with HER2-positive BC. 101 patients (68.2%) additionally underwent RRSOs. The 12-month RRSO-free probability was 0.58 (95% CI 0.50-0.68) and the 24-month RRSO-free probability 0.39 (95% CI 0.31-0.49). Occult OC was detected in three patients at the time of RRSO during BC follow-up, four patients without RRSO were diagnosed with OC after BC.

conclusionsIn real-world setting, RRSO is a common prevention in gBRCAmut BC follow-up. The majority of patients undergo surgery within the first two years following a BC diagnosis. Survival outcomes among patients with BC have improved substantially in recent years. Consequently, developing OC in gBRCAmut BC individuals still remains a risk. RRSO should therefore continue to be offered and discussed in accordance with current guidelines, even in the context of a BC diagnosis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsSalpingo-oophorectomyAdultAgedBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Germ-Line MutationHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanBRCAHereditary breast and ovarian cancerMastectomyOCRRSO

Identifiers

PMID42804048
PMCPMC13619706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.