Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChandrasekaran, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorMenon, Uen_US
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorCrawford, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorSaridogan, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorJacobs, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorTischkowitz, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorBrockbank, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorKalsi, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorJurkovic, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorManchanda, Ren_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-19T16:44:53Z
dc.date.available2015-07-10en_US
dc.date.issued2015-07-16en_US
dc.identifier.issn1573-7292en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/10800
dc.description.abstractRisk-reducing-salpingectomy and Delayed-Oophorectomy (RRSDO) is being proposed as a two-staged approach in place of RRSO to reduce the risks associated with premature menopause in high-risk women. We report on the acceptability/attitude of UK health professionals towards RRSDO. An anonymised web-based survey was sent to UK Cancer Genetics Group (CGG) and British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) members to assess attitudes towards RRSDO. Baseline characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. A Chi square test was used to compare categorical, Kendal-tau-b test for ordinal and Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables between two groups. 173/708 (24.4 %) of invitees responded. 71 % respondents (CGG = 57 %/BGCS = 83 %, p = 0.005) agreed with the tubal hypothesis for OC, 55 % (CGG = 42 %/BGCS = 66 %, p = 0.003) had heard of RRSDO and 48 % (CGG = 46 %/BGCS = 50 %) felt evidence was not currently strong enough for introduction into clinical practice. However, 60 % respondents’ (CGG = 48 %/BGCS = 71 %, p = 0.009) favoured offering RRSDO to high-risk women declining RRSO, 77 % only supported RRSDO within a clinical trial (CGG = 78 %/BGCS = 76 %) and 81 % (CGG = 76 %/BGCS = 86 %) advocated a UK-wide registry. Vasomotor symptoms (72 %), impact on sexual function (63 %), osteoporosis (59 %), hormonal-therapy (55 %) and subfertility (48 %) related to premature menopause influenced their choice of RRSDO. Potential barriers to offering the two-stage procedure included lack of data on precise level of benefit (83 %), increased surgical morbidity (79 %), loss of breast cancer risk reduction associated with oophorectomy (68 %), need for long-term follow-up (61 %) and a proportion not undergoing DO (66 %). There were variations in perception between BGCS/CGG members which are probably attributable to differences in clinical focus/expertise between these two groups. Despite concerns, there is reasonable support amongst UK clinicians to offering RRSDO to premenopausal high-risk women wishing to avoid RRSO, within a prospective clinical trial.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work has not been directly funded by any commercial organisation, or charity.en_US
dc.format.extent521 - 530 (10)en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Verlag (Germany)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofFamilial Canceren_US
dc.rightsThe final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10689-015-9823-y
dc.subjectRisk reducing salpingectomyen_US
dc.subjectDelayed oophorectomyen_US
dc.subjectRRSDOen_US
dc.subjectBRCAen_US
dc.subjectHigh-risken_US
dc.subjectOvarian canceren_US
dc.titleRisk Reducing Salpingectomy and Delayed Oophorectomy in high risk women: views of cancer geneticists, genetic counsellors and gynaecological oncologists in the UKen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10689-015-9823-yen_US
pubs.issue4en_US
pubs.notes12 monthsen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10689-015-9823-yen_US
pubs.volume14en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-07-10en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record