Role of Routine Peritoneal Biopsies During Risk Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy (RRSO)

Abstract

Objective The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the role of routine peritoneal biopsies during risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO).

Methods Data of 204 women who underwent RRSO between January 1, 2014 and February 20, 2020 at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte were retrospectively analyzed. RRSO was done according to the standard operating procedures of the German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) with peritoneal washing and several peritoneal biopsies. Specimen collected during RRSO were analyzed using the protocol for Sectioning and Extensively Examining the FIMbria (SEE-FIM). Perioperative complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo-Classification.

Results 147 women who underwent RRSO had peritoneal biopsies and pelvic washing, 44 women had none of that. 123 patients (64.4%) carried a pathologic variant in gBRCA1, 53 (27.7%) carried a pathologic variant in gBRCA2. Histopathological evaluation identified four patients (2.1%) with pathological findings. Neither peritoneal biopsies nor pelvic washings revealed additional information after histological examination. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rate between the two groups. The mean surgery time for RRSO without peritoneal biopsies was 64.3 minutes compared to 77.8 minutes with peritoneal biopsies. That shows a statistically significant prolongation of 16% (13.5 minutes, p = 0.0383).

Conclusions The routine use of peritoneal biopsies during RRSO does not improve detection of occult ovarian cancer or STIC but prolongs the operation time significantly. By omitting peritoneal biopsies in RRSO not only perioperative risks are diminished but also costs could be reduced by shortening of surgery time as well as decreased number of pathological samples.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung Ziel dieser retrospektiven Studie war es, die Bedeutung von routinemäßig durchgeführten peritonealen Biopsien bei risikoreduzierenden Salpingo-Oophorektomien (RRSO) zu evaluieren.

Methoden Die Daten von 204 Frauen, die sich zwischen dem 1. Januar 2014 und dem 20. Februar 2020 an der Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte, einer RRSO unterzogen, wurden retrospektiv analysiert. Die RRSO-Eingriffe wurden entsprechend den Vorgaben des Deutschen Konsortiums Familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs zusammen mit Peritoneallavagen und mehreren peritonealen Biopsien durchgeführt. Die entnommenen Proben wurde gemäß dem SEE-FIM-Protokoll (SEE-FIM: Sectioning and Extensively Examining the FIMbria) analysiert. Perioperative Komplikationen wurden mithilfe der Clavien-Dindo-Klassifikation erfasst.

Ergebnisse Bei 147 Frauen, die sich einer RRSO unterzogen, wurden peritoneale Biopsien entnommen bzw. eine Peritonealspülung durchgeführt. Bei 44 Frauen wurde nur eine RSSO durchgeführt. Bei 123 Patientinnen (64,4%) fand sich eine pathologische gBRCA1-Mutation, 53 (27,7%) hatten eine pathologische gBRCA2-Mutation. Bei der histopathologischen Untersuchung wurden pathologische Befunde bei 4 Patientinnen (2,1%) festgestellt. Weder peritoneale Biopsien noch Bauchspülungen führten nach der histologischen Untersuchung zu weiteren Befunden. Es gab keinen statistisch signifikanten Unterschied zwischen beiden Gruppen in Bezug auf die Komplikationsraten. Die durchschnittliche Operationszeit für eine RRSO ohne peritoneale Biopsie betrug 64,3 Minuten verglichen mit 77,8 Minuten für eine RSSO mit peritonealer Biopsie. Das kam einer statistisch signifikanten Verlängerung der Operationszeit von 16% gleich (13,5 Minuten, p = 0,0383).

Schlussfolgerungen Die routinemäßige Durchführung von peritonealen Biopsien während einer RRSO führt nicht zu einer besseren Eierstockkrebs- oder STIC-Erkennungsrate, sondern nur zu einer signifikanten Verlängerung der Operationszeit. Werden keine peritoneale Biopsien bei der RSSO durchgeführt, verringern sich nicht nur die perioperativen Risiken, sondern auch die Kosten, da sich die Operationszeit verkürzt und die Anzahl der zur untersuchenden Proben verringert.

Key words

hereditary ovarian cancer - risk-reducing surgery - salpingo-oophorectomy - hereditary breast cancer - BRCA

Schlüsselwörter

erblicher Eierstockkrebs - risikoreduzierende Chirurgie - Salpingo-Oophorektomie - erblicher Brustkrebs - BRCA

^* These authors contributed equally.

Publication History

Received: 15 January 2021

Accepted after revision: 17 February 2021

Article published online:
13 September 2021

• References

• 1 Kotsopoulos J, Narod SA. Prophylactic salpingectomy for the prevention of ovarian cancer: Who should we target?. Int J Cancer 2020; DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32916.
• 2 Robert Koch-Institut, Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V.. Krebs in Deutschland 2015/2016. Eierstockkrebs (Ovarialkarzinom). 2019 DOI: 10.25646/5977
• 3 Rudaitis V, Mikliusas V, Januska G. et al. The incidence of occult ovarian neoplasia and cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers after the bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO): A single-center prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 247: 26-31 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.040.
• 4 Zakhour M, Danovitch Y, Lester J. et al. Occult and subsequent cancer incidence following risk-reducing surgery in BRCA mutation carriers. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 143: 231-235 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.336.
• 5 Stjepanovic N, Villacampa G, Nead KT. et al. Association of premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: Maximising bias-reduction. Eur J Cancer 2020; 132: 53-60 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.03.009.
• 6 Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox AN. et al. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med 2019; 21: 1708-1718 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9.
• 7 MacInnis RJ, Knight JA, Chung WK. et al. Comparing Five-Year and Lifetime Risks of Breast Cancer in the Prospective Family Study Cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa178.
• 8 Miller H, Pipkin LS, Tung C. et al. The Role of Routine Peritoneal and Omental Biopsies at Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24: 772-776 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.03.001.
• 9 Kenkhuis MJ, de Bock GH, Elferink PO. et al. Short-term surgical outcome and safety of risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Maturitas 2010; 66: 310-314 DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.03.018.
• 10 Minig L, Cabrera S, Oliver R. et al. Pathology findings and clinical outcomes after risk reduction salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carriers: a multicenter Spanish study. Clin Transl Oncol 2018; 20: 1337-1344 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-018-1865-9.
• 11 Rush SK, Swisher EM, Garcia RL. et al. Pathologic findings and clinical outcomes in women undergoing risk-reducing surgery to prevent ovarian and fallopian tube carcinoma: A large prospective single institution experience. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 157: 514-520 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.006.
• 12 Weinberger V, Bednarikova M, Cibula D. et al. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) – clinical impact and management. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2016; 16: 1311-1321 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2016.1247699.
• 13 Patrono MG, Iniesta MD, Malpica A. et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC): A comprehensive review. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 139: 568-572 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.09.018.
• 14 Kyo S, Ishikawa N, Nakamura K. et al. The fallopian tube as origin of ovarian cancer: Change of diagnostic and preventive strategies. Cancer Med 2020; 9: 421-431 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2725.
• 15 Nebgen DR, Hurteau J, Holman LL. et al. Bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction: A pilot study in women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 150: 79-84 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.564.
• 16 De Felice F, Marchetti C, Boccia SM. et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutated patients: An evidence-based approach on what women should know. Cancer Treat Rev 2017; 61: 1-5 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.09.005.
• 17 Radosa MP, Meyberg-Solomayer G, Radosa J. et al. Standardised Registration of Surgical Complications in Laparoscopic-Gynaecological Therapeutic Procedures Using the Clavien-Dindo Classification. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74: 752-758 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1382925.
• 18 Findeklee S, Radosa JC, Schafhaupt S. et al. Evaluating the use of Clavien-Dindo classification and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire as quality indicators in gynecologic endoscopy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019; 300: 1317-1324 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05302-w.
• 19 Koc N, Ayas S, Arinkan SA. Comparison of the Classical Method and SEE-FIM Protocol in Detecting Microscopic Lesions in Fallopian Tubes with Gynecological Lesions. J Pathol Transl Med 2018; 52: 21-27 DOI: 10.4132/jptm.2016.06.17.
• 20 Powell CB, Kenley E, Chen LM. et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carriers: role of serial sectioning in the detection of occult malignancy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 127-132 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2005.04.109.
• 21 Powell CB. Risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for BRCA mutation carriers: twenty years later. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132: 261-263 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.018.
• 22 Powell CB, Swisher EM, Cass I. et al. Long term follow up of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with unsuspected neoplasia identified at risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 129: 364-371 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.029.
• 23 Piedimonte S, Frank C, Laprise C. et al. Occult Tubal Carcinoma After Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy: A Systematic Review. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135: 498-508 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003702.
• 24 Medeiros F, Muto MG, Lee Y. et al. The tubal fimbria is a preferred site for early adenocarcinoma in women with familial ovarian cancer syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol 2006; 30: 230-236 DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000180854.28831.77.
• 25 Walker JL, Powell CB, Chen LM. et al. Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the prevention of ovarian cancer. Cancer 2015; 121: 2108-2120 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29321.