Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 171, Issue 1, pp 217–223 | Cite as

Concurrent risk-reduction surgery in patients with increased lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database

  • Maryam ElmiEmail author
  • Arash Azin
  • Ahmad Elnahas
  • David R. McCready
  • Tulin D. Cil



Patients with genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer are eligible for risk-reduction surgery. Surgical morbidity of risk-reduction mastectomy (RRM) with concurrent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is unknown. Outcomes in these patients were compared to patients undergoing RRM without BSO using a large multi-institutional database.


A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the American College of Surgeon’s National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2007–2016 datasets, comparing postoperative morbidity between patients undergoing RRM with patients undergoing RRM with concurrent BSO. Patients with genetic susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer undergoing risk-reduction surgery were identified. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative major morbidity. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections, reoperations, readmissions, length of stay, and venous thromboembolic events. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine predictors of postoperative morbidity and the adjusted effect of concurrent BSO on morbidity.


Of the 5470 patients undergoing RRM, 149 (2.7%) underwent concurrent BSO. The overall rate of major morbidity and postoperative infections was 4.5% and 4.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative major morbidity (4.5% vs 4.7%, p = 0.91) or any of the secondary outcomes between patients undergoing RRM without BSO vs. those undergoing RRM with concurrent BSO. Multivariable analysis showed Body Mass Index (OR 1.05; p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.78; p = 0.003) to be the only predictors associated with major morbidity. Neither immediate breast reconstruction (OR 1.02; p = 0.93) nor concurrent BSO (OR 0.94; p = 0.89) were associated with increased postoperative major morbidity.


This study demonstrated that RRM with concurrent BSO was not associated with significant additional morbidity when compared to RRM without BSO. Therefore, this joint approach may be considered for select patients at risk for both breast and ovarian cancer.


BRCA Genetic susceptibility Breast cancer Ovarian cancer National surgical quality improvement program Risk-reduction surgery Mastectomy Salpingo-oophorectomy 


Author contributions

ME, AA, AE, DRM, TDC: Conception and design, AE, AA: Acquisition of data, ME, AA, AE, DRM, TDC: Analysis and interpretation of data, ME, AA, AE, DRM, TDC: Drafting of manuscript, ME, AA, AE, DRM, TDC: Critical revision and final approval

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Chen S, Parmigiani G (2007) Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 25(11):1329–1333CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuchenbaecker KB et al (2017) Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. Jama 317(23):2402–2416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mavaddat N et al (2013) Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(11):812 – 22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meijers-Heijboer H et al (2001) Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 345(3):159 – 64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rebbeck TR et al (2004) Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 22(6):1055–1062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartmann LC et al (1999) Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 340(2):77–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ludwig KK et al (2016) Risk reduction and survival benefit of prophylactic surgery in BRCA mutation carriers, a systematic review. Am J Surg 212(4):660–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilbert M et al (2002) The genetic bases for the variation in the lipo-oligosaccharide of the mucosal pathogen, Campylobacter jejuni. Biosynthesis of sialylated ganglioside mimics in the core oligosaccharide. J Biol Chem 277(1):327 – 37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Domchek SM et al (2010) Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. Jama 304(9):967 – 75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rebbeck TR et al (2002) Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346(21):1616–1622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kauff ND et al (2008) Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast and gynecologic cancer: a multicenter, prospective study. J Clin Oncol 26(8):1331–1337CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J, S.C., et al., Comparing Coordinated Versus Sequential Salpingo-Oophorectomy for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Breast Cancer. Clin Breast Cancer, 2016. 16(6): 494–499Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Batista LI et al (2008) Coordinated prophylactic surgical management for women with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome. BMC Cancer 8:101CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Del Corral GA et al (2015) Outcomes and Cost Analysis in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Simultaneous Free Flap Breast Reconstruction and Gynecologic Procedures. Ann Plast Surg 75(5):534–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khadim MF et al (2013) Multidisciplinary one-stage risk-reducing gynaecological and breast surgery with immediate reconstruction in BRCA-gene carrier women. Eur J Surg Oncol 39(12):1346–1350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM (2009) Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(2):80 – 7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fatouros M, Baltoyiannis G, Roukos DH (2008) The predominant role of surgery in the prevention and new trends in the surgical treatment of women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Ann Surg Oncol 15(1):21–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fischer JP et al (2013) Impact of obesity on outcomes in breast reconstruction: analysis of 15,937 patients from the ACS-NSQIP datasets. J Am Coll Surg 217(4):656 – 64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fischer JP et al (2014) Effect of BMI on modality-specific outcomes in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR)--a propensity-matched analysis using the 2005–2011 ACS-NSQIP datasets. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 48(5):297–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ilonzo N et al (2017) Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast 32:7–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khoo A et al (1998) A comparison of resource costs of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 101(4):964–968 discussion 969 – 70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-Ghazal SK et al (2000) The psychological impact of immediate rather than delayed breast reconstruction. Eur J Surg Oncol 26(1):17 – 9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Casey WJ et al (2010) Safety and efficacy of perforator flap breast reconstruction with combined intraabdominal procedures. Ann Plast Surg 64(2):144 – 50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Voss SC, Sharp HC, Scott JR (1986) Abdominoplasty combined with gynecologic surgical procedures. Obstet Gynecol 67(2):181–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shull BL, Verheyden CN (1988) Combined plastic and gynecological surgical procedures. Ann Plast Surg 20(6):552–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kryger ZB, Dumanian GA, Howard MA (2007) Safety issues in combined gynecologic and plastic surgical procedures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99(3):257 – 63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ma IT et al (2017) Outcomes of Concurrent Breast and Gynecologic Risk Reduction Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 24(1):77–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Willsher P, Ali A, Jackson L (2008) Laparoscopic oophorectomy in the management of breast disease. ANZ J Surg 78(8):670–672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perabo M et al (2014) Prophylactic mastectomy with immediate reconstruction combined with simultaneous laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy via a transmammary route: a novel surgical approach to female BRCA-mutation carriers. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(6):1325–1330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garvey EM et al (2013) Neoadjuvant therapy and breast cancer surgery: a closer look at postoperative complications. Am J Surg 206(6):894–898; discussion 898–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of General SurgeryUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryWomen’s College HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations