Skip to main content
Log in

Prophylactic oophorectomy in Ontario

  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To determine the indications, patterns of practice, and complication rates for prophylactic oophorectomy in Ontario.Methods: From hospital discharge abstracts, 82 hospitals were identified where at least one patient had a prophylactic oophorectomy since 1992. Ethics approval for the chart review was obtained from 41 hospitals (50%), was denied at 10 (12%) and is pending at 31 facilities. Using the International Classification of Disease diagnostic code for family history of ovarian cancer (V16.4) and prophylactic oophorectomy (V50.42), the medical records departments were asked to retrieve the charts. One abstractor reviewed the charts using a standard form to collect demographic information, indications for surgery, details of surgery and complications. Results: From 1992–1998, 263 women underwent PO in 41 hospitals. A BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was recorded in 16 cases. Thirty-six patients had a past history of breast cancer. In 127 women, a family history was the sole reason for surgery; the remaining 136 women had a coexisting gynecologic complaint. Laparotomy was used exclusively in 155 cases, laparoscopy in 79 and vaginal access in 12 cases. Seventeen women required conversion to laparotomy during the operation. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.7 days (0–14 days). Thirty-six women (14percnt) had complications.Conclusion: We have described the indications for surgery, trends in surgical practice and surgical complications for women receiving prophylactic oophorectomy in Ontario. Prior to prophylactic oophorectomy, the indications and benefits should be clear to both patient and physician. Optimally, all women should receive genetic counseling to help define risk for ovarian and breast cancer, medical and surgical options, impact of oophorectomy on cancer risk, risk of surgical complications, and the consequences and management of surgical menopause.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Struewing JP, Watson P, Easton DF et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy in inherited breast/ovarian cancer families. Monogr Nat Cancer Inst 1995; 17: 33-5.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Piver MS, Jishi MF, Tsukada Y, Nava G. Primary peritoneal carcinoma after prophylactic oophorectomy in women with a family history of ovarian cancer. Cancer 1993; 71: 2751-55.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Piver MS, Rosen B, Gershenson DM, McGuire WP (eds). Ovarian Cancer: Controversies in Management. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998: 17-40.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kemp GM, Hsiu JG, Andrews MC. Papillary peritoneal carcinomatosis after prophylactic oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol 1992; 47: 395-397.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Meijer WJ, van Lindert ACM. Prophylactic oophorectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1992; 47: 59.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ministry of Industry Statistics Canada. Canadian Classification of Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Surgical Procedures. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Elit L, Metcalfe K, Narod S, Goel V. Patterns of Hospital Administrative and Ethical Review Practices. Annals of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Canada 2001; 34(4): 206-9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Einhorn N, Sjovall K, Knapp R et al. Prospective evaluation of serum CA 125 levels for early detection of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 14-8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nguyen HN, Averette HE, Janicek M. Ovarian carcinoma. A review of the significance of familial risk factors and the role of prophylactic oophorectomy in cancer prevention. Cancer 1994; 74: 545-55.

    Google Scholar 

  10. van Nagell JR, DePriest PD, Puls LE et al. Ovarian cancer screening in asymptomatic postmenopausal women by transvaginal sonography. Cancer 1991; 68: 458-62.

    Google Scholar 

  11. van Nagell JR, DePriest PD, Gallion HH, Pavlik EJ. Ovarian cancer screening. Cancer 1993; 71: 1523-8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Weiner Z, Thaler I, Beck D et al. Differentiating malignant from benign ovarian tumors with transvaginal colow flow imaging. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 159-162.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Narod SA, Risch H, Moslehi R et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. NEJM 1998; 339: 424-8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lerman C, Daly M, Masny G, Balshem A. Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 843-850.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lerman C, Croyle R. Psychological issues in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 609-616.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lynch HT, Lemon SJ, Durham C et al. A descriptive study of BRCA1 testing and reactions to disclosure of test results. Cancer 1997; 79: 2219-28.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rozario D, Brown I, Fung Kee Fung M, Temple L. Is incidental prophylactic oophorectomy an acceptable means to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer? Am J Surgery 1997; 173: 495-8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Aziz S, Kuperstein G, Rosen B et al. A genetic epidemiology study of carcinoma of the Fallopian Tube. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 80: 341-5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elit, L., Rosen, B., Goel, V. et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy in Ontario. Familial Cancer 1, 143–148 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021174604905

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021174604905

Keywords

Navigation