Salpingectomy With Delayed Oophorectomy Versus Salpingo‐Oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 Carriers: Three‐Year Outcomes of a Prospective Preference Trial

Majke H. D. Van Bommel, Miranda P. Steenbeek, Joanna Inthout, Tessa Van Garderen, Marline G. Harmsen, Marieke Arts‐De Jong, Angela H. E. M. Maas, Judith B. Prins, Johan Bulten, Helena C. Van Doorn, Marian J. E. Mourits, Rachel Tros, Ronald P. Zweemer, Katja N. Gaarenstroom, Brigitte F. M. Slangen, Monique M. A. Brood‐Van Zanten, M. Caroline Vos, Jurgen M. J. Piek, Luc R. C. W. van Lonkhuijzen, Mirjam J. A. Apperloo, Sjors F. P. J. Coppus, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge, Rosella P. M. G. Hermens, Joanne A. De Hullu
{"title":"Salpingectomy With Delayed Oophorectomy Versus Salpingo‐Oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 Carriers: Three‐Year Outcomes of a Prospective Preference Trial","authors":"Majke H. D. Van Bommel, Miranda P. Steenbeek, Joanna Inthout, Tessa Van Garderen, Marline G. Harmsen, Marieke Arts‐De Jong, Angela H. E. M. Maas, Judith B. Prins, Johan Bulten, Helena C. Van Doorn, Marian J. E. Mourits, Rachel Tros, Ronald P. Zweemer, Katja N. Gaarenstroom, Brigitte F. M. Slangen, Monique M. A. Brood‐Van Zanten, M. Caroline Vos, Jurgen M. J. Piek, Luc R. C. W. van Lonkhuijzen, Mirjam J. A. Apperloo, Sjors F. P. J. Coppus, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge, Rosella P. M. G. Hermens, Joanne A. De Hullu","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.18075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo compare menopause‐related quality of life (QoL) after risk‐reducing salpingectomy (RRS) versus risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) until 3 years of post‐surgery.DesignA prospective study (TUBA study) with treatment allocation based on patients' preference. Data were collected pre‐surgery and at 3 months, 1 and 3 years of post‐surgery.SettingMulticentre prospective preference trial in thirteen hospitals in the Netherlands.Population<jats:italic>BRCA1/2</jats:italic> pathogenic variant (PV) carriers aged 25–40 (<jats:italic>BRCA1</jats:italic>) or 25–45 (<jats:italic>BRCA2</jats:italic>), who were premenopausal, without a future child wish and without current (treatment for) malignancy.MethodsTreatment allocation was based on patients' preference: either RRS from the age of 25 years with delayed oophorectomy at the maximum age of 45 (<jats:italic>BRCA1</jats:italic>) or 50 (<jats:italic>BRCA2</jats:italic>), or RRSO between the ages of 35–40 (<jats:italic>BRCA1</jats:italic>) or 40–45 (<jats:italic>BRCA2</jats:italic>). After RRSO, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was recommended, if not contraindicated. Primarily, menopause‐related QoL as measured with the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) was compared between the RRS and RRSO without HRT group. Secondarily, GSC‐scores of the RRS group were compared with the scores of the RRSO with HRT after surgery group. A higher GSC‐score reflects more climacteric symptoms.ResultsUntil April 2023, 410 participants had undergone RRS and 160 RRSO. The <jats:italic>BRCA1/BRCA2</jats:italic> proportions were 51.4%/48.6%. The mean age at surgery (SD) was 37.9 (3.5) years. Participants 3 years after RRSO without HRT had a 4.3 (95% CI 2.1–6.5; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001) point higher increase in GCS‐score from baseline compared to those after RRS, while the difference was 7.9 (95% CI 5.9–9.8) and 8.5 (95% CI 6.5–10.5) points at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Among participants with HRT after surgery, the RRSO group had a 2.4 (95% CI 0.8–3.9; <jats:italic>p =</jats:italic> 0.002) point higher increase in GCS‐score from baseline compared to the RRS group.ConclusionsIn this multicentre preference trial, menopause‐related QoL was better after RRS than after RRSO, even with HRT after RRSO. Differences between arms were most pronounced until one‐year post‐surgery.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare menopause‐related quality of life (QoL) after risk‐reducing salpingectomy (RRS) versus risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) until 3 years of post‐surgery.DesignA prospective study (TUBA study) with treatment allocation based on patients' preference. Data were collected pre‐surgery and at 3 months, 1 and 3 years of post‐surgery.SettingMulticentre prospective preference trial in thirteen hospitals in the Netherlands.PopulationBRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers aged 25–40 (BRCA1) or 25–45 (BRCA2), who were premenopausal, without a future child wish and without current (treatment for) malignancy.MethodsTreatment allocation was based on patients' preference: either RRS from the age of 25 years with delayed oophorectomy at the maximum age of 45 (BRCA1) or 50 (BRCA2), or RRSO between the ages of 35–40 (BRCA1) or 40–45 (BRCA2). After RRSO, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was recommended, if not contraindicated. Primarily, menopause‐related QoL as measured with the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) was compared between the RRS and RRSO without HRT group. Secondarily, GSC‐scores of the RRS group were compared with the scores of the RRSO with HRT after surgery group. A higher GSC‐score reflects more climacteric symptoms.ResultsUntil April 2023, 410 participants had undergone RRS and 160 RRSO. The BRCA1/BRCA2 proportions were 51.4%/48.6%. The mean age at surgery (SD) was 37.9 (3.5) years. Participants 3 years after RRSO without HRT had a 4.3 (95% CI 2.1–6.5; p < 0.001) point higher increase in GCS‐score from baseline compared to those after RRS, while the difference was 7.9 (95% CI 5.9–9.8) and 8.5 (95% CI 6.5–10.5) points at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Among participants with HRT after surgery, the RRSO group had a 2.4 (95% CI 0.8–3.9; p = 0.002) point higher increase in GCS‐score from baseline compared to the RRS group.ConclusionsIn this multicentre preference trial, menopause‐related QoL was better after RRS than after RRSO, even with HRT after RRSO. Differences between arms were most pronounced until one‐year post‐surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
BRCA1/2携带者输卵管切除术加延迟卵巢切除术与输卵管-卵巢切除术:一项前瞻性偏好试验的三年结果
目的比较降低风险的输卵管切除术(RRS)与降低风险的输卵管切除术(RRSO)术后至术后 3 年与绝经相关的生活质量(QoL)。人群BRCA1/2致病性变异(PV)携带者,年龄在25-40岁(BRCA1)或25-45岁(BRCA2),绝经前,无生育意愿,目前无恶性肿瘤(治疗)。方法根据患者的意愿进行治疗分配:或者从 25 岁开始进行 RRS,并在最高 45 岁(BRCA1)或 50 岁(BRCA2)时延迟进行输卵管切除术;或者在 35-40 岁(BRCA1)或 40-45 岁(BRCA2)之间进行 RRSO。RRSO 后,如果没有禁忌症,建议采用激素替代疗法(HRT)。首先,比较了 RRSO 组和不使用 HRT 的 RRSO 组使用格林 Climacteric Scale(GCS)测量的更年期相关 QoL。其次,将 RRS 组的 GSC 分数与术后接受 HRT 的 RRSO 组的分数进行比较。结果截至2023年4月,410名参与者接受了RRS手术,160名参与者接受了RRSO手术。BRCA1/BRCA2比例为51.4%/48.6%。手术时的平均年龄(标清)为 37.9 (3.5) 岁。RRSO 术后 3 年未接受 HRT 的患者与 RRS 术后的患者相比,GCS 评分比基线高出 4.3 (95% CI 2.1-6.5; p < 0.001)分,而 3 个月和 12 个月时的差异分别为 7.9 (95% CI 5.9-9.8) 分和 8.5 (95% CI 6.5-10.5) 分。结论在这项多中心优选试验中,RRS术后的更年期相关生活质量优于RRSO术后,即使在RRSO术后进行HRT治疗。两组间的差异在术后一年前最为明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of Zona Pellucida Gene Variants With Female Infertility: A Retrospective Genetic Analysis Optimising Aspirin Use for Pre-Eclampsia Prevention: The Critical Role of Dose, Timing and Adherence Effect of Comprehensive Individualised Interventions on the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort Study Twelve-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Versus Mid-Urethral Sling Surgery for Female Moderate to Severe Urinary Incontinence Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Pregnant Women With Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Study on 9 Million Pregnancies and 40 Cases of Lung Cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1