**The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome**

A.J. Lowery and K.J. Sweeney *Department of Surgery, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland* 

## **1. Introduction**

344 Hysterectomy

[28] Futterweit, W., Weiss, R., & Fagerstrom. (1986) Endocrine evaluation of forty female-to-

[29] Balen. A., Schachter. M., Montgomery, D., Reid, R., & Jacobs, H. (1993) Polycystic

[30] Futterweit. W., & Deligdisch, L. (1986) Histopathological effects of exogenously

[31] Hage, J., Dekker, J., Karim. R., Verheijen, R., & Bloemena, Em. (2000) Ovarian cancer in

[32] Michel, A., Mormont, C., & Legros, J. (2001). A psycho-endocrinological overview of

[33] Leiter, E., Futterweit, W,, & Brown, G. (1993). In: Webster G, Kirby R, King L,

[34] Giudice LC. Elucidating endometrial function in the post-genomic era. Human

[35] Okon MA, Laird SM, Tuckerman EM, Li TC. Serum androgen levels in women who

[36] Tulppala M, Stenman UH, Cacciatore B, Ylikorkala O. Polycystic ovaries and levels of

[37] Cheung AP. Ultrasound and menstrual history in predicting endometrial hyperplasia in polycystic ovary syndrome. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001; 98: 325–331. [38] Miller N, Bedard YC, Cooter NB, Shaul DL. Histological changes in the genital tract in transsexual women following androgen therapy. Histopathology 1986; 10: 661-9. [39] Byun JC, Kwak BG, Shin JH, Cha MS, Han MS, Rha SH, Kim SK. The Histologic

Patients with Depot Androgen Injection. Kor J Fertil Steril 2005;32:325-330.

female transsexualism. Arch Sex Behav, 15, 69–78.

transsexualism. Eur J Endocrinol, 145, 365–376.

women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:348 –52.

Reproduction Update 2003;9: 223–235.

function. Fertil Steril 1998;69:682–90.

Endocrinol (Oxf) 38, 325–329.

Endocrinol Metab, 62, 16–21.

Publications; 23, 921–932

415.

male transsexual people: increased frequency of polycystic ovarian disease in

ovaries are a common finding in untreated female to male transsexual people. Clin

administered testosterone in 19 female to male transsexual people. J Clin

female-to-male transsexual people: report of two cases. Gynecol Oncology, 76, 413–

Goldwasser B, eds. Reconstructive urology. Boston: Blackwell Scientific

suffer recurrent miscarriage and their correlation with markers of endometrial

gonadotrophins and androgens in recurrent miscarriage: prospective study in 50

Features of the Uterus and Adnexa Extirpated from Gender Identity Disorder

#### **1.1 Historical perspective of prophylactic-oophorectomy in ovarian and breast cancers before the era of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing**

Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (PO) entails removal of the ovaries prior to the clinical occurrence of cancer. Prophylactic removal of the ovaries, during hysterectomy or other abdominal surgery, to prevent ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women was popularised in the 1940s by Crossen, who stated *"the involuting ovaries have fulfilled their reproductive and endocrine function. They are....vestigial structures which carry a special tendency to cancer*" (Crossen, 1942). The first report of prophylactic oophorectomy for familial ovarian cancer was in 1950 when A.M Liber described a family of five sisters and their mother, all with histologically confirmed papillary adenocarcinoma of the ovary; it was recommended that family members should undergo frequent gynaecologic screening, and that prophylactic oophorectomy should be considered (Liber, 1950)

The role of oophorectomy in the management of breast cancer dates further back to 1889 when it was first proposed by Albert Schinzinger (Schinzinger, 1889); he observed that the prognosis for breast cancer appeared better in older women than younger women and postulated that oophorectomy would initiate atrophy of the breast and any cancer within the breast. Shinzinger suggested oophorectomy both as therapy for advanced breast cancer and prophylaxis against local recurrence, but he never actually performed the surgery; it was George Thomas Beatson who first performed a bilateral oophorectomy on a patient with metastatic breast cancer in 1895 , this was reported in the Lancet in 1896 (Beatson, 1896). A subsequent report detailed that this patient experienced remission of her disease and lived another four years. Beatson hypothesized that oophorectomy caused fatty degeneration of the malignant cells accounting for its beneficial effect in breast cancer (Beatson, 1896; Thomson, 1902). An English surgeon, Stanley Boyd performed the first oophorectomy as adjuvant breast cancer therapy in 1897 (Boyd, 1897). He commented "my working hypothesis is that internal secretion of the ovaries in some cases favors the growth of the cancer" and subsequently reported that that one third of breast cancer patients benefited from oophorectomy as adjuvant therapy (Boyd, 1900), in this way the rationale for hormonal treatment of breast cancer was first implied. In 1968 Feinleib observed that

The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

ovarian cancer.

Mitra et al, 2008).

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 347

manner (non-homologous end-joining), which may lead to chromosomal rearrangements. The resultant chromosomal instability is a key feature of carcinogenesis. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are classified as tumour suppressor genes, and since their discovery, hundreds of different mutations have been reported in these genes. The prevalence of BRCA mutations in most European and North American countries is reported as 0.06 – 0.24% (Malone et al, 2006; Whittemore et al, 1997 & 2004). However there are specific populations in which the frequency of mutations are higher due to strong founder effect; these include ethnic and geographic populations worldwide including those of Norwegian, Dutch and Icelandic descent (Neuhausen et al, 2009). The Ashkenazi Jewish population is perhaps the best characterised example; three specific mutations; 185delAG and 5382insC in the BRCA1 gene, and 6174delT in BRCA2 are the most common mutations in this population and have been found to occur with frequencies of 2-2.5% which is at least five times that of the general population (Ferla et al, 2007; Neuhausen et al, 2009; Struewing et al, 1997; Warner et al, 1999), thus endowing this population with a significantly increased risk of breast and

The risk of breast and ovarian cancer in the general population is 10-13% and 1.7% respectively. This risk is significantly elevated in women carrying mutations of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a 54-85% and 45% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, respectively and an 18-60% and 11-27% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer (Antoniou et al, 2003; Easton et al, 1995; King et al, 2003). Furthermore, BRCA1 mutation carriers are at increased risk for fallopian tube carcinoma (Paley et al, 2001; Zweemer et al, 2000), primary peritoneal carcinoma (Levine et al, 2003; Olivier et al, 2004), and uterine serous papillary carcinoma (Biron-shental et al, 2006). BRCA2 mutations are also associated with increased risk for a variety of other cancers including melanoma, pancreas, bone, hepatobiliary and pharyngeal cancer (Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium, 1999). Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with an increased risk of male breast cancer (Tai et al, 2007) and early onset prostate cancer (Agalliu et al, 2009;

It is important to note that the breast and ovarian cancers in patients with a BRCA mutation exhibit phenotypic characteristics that are distinct from sporadic cancers, a fact that may have implications for local and systemic treatment. The ovarian cancers in families with BRCA mutations are predominantly histologically serous adenocarcinomas frequently exhibiting papillary changes; epithelial ovarian adenocarcinomas that occur in patients with transmitted germ-line BRCA1 mutations are characteristically high-grade with underpresentation of mucinous or borderline tumours (Kurian et al, 2005; Chiaffarino et al, 2007). Hereditary breast cancers due to BRCA mutations occur at a much younger age than sporadic cancers, and are more likely to be multi-focal and bilateral. BRCA 1 and BRCA2 related breast cancers however, have a distinct morphologic and molecular signature (Bane et al, 2007; Foulkes et al, 2003). The breast cancers that develop in BRCA2 gene mutation carriers are similar to sporadic breast cancers, they are more likely to exhibit the luminal phenotype of breast cancer and express the oestrogen receptor. Conversely, the breast cancers associated with BRCA1 mutation usually exhibit a distinct basal phenotype (Foulkes et al, 2003) characterised by lack of estrogen, progesterone and HER2/neu receptors and abundant expression of basal-type cytokeratins. The basal subtype of breast cancer is an aggressive form of tumour associated with increased metastatic potential and decreased overall survival (Billar et al, 2010; Dent et al, 2007) ; the poor prognosis and high recurrence

premenopausal oophorectomy decreased the rate of subsequent breast cancer (Feinleib, 1968) however it was a further twenty years before Brinton proposed the potential of oophorectomy as a breast cancer *prevention* strategy, reporting that women, with a family history of breast cancer, who underwent oophorectomy before the age of 40 years had a 45% reduction in breast cancer risk compared with women who underwent natural menopause (Brinton et al, 1988). Meijer and van Lindert similarly reported that surgery performed before the age of natural menopause significantly reduced breast cancer risk (Meijer & van Lindert, 1992). These studies commented on patients with a family history of breast cancer, introducing the role of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (PSO) as a risk reducing strategy in hereditary breast cancer. At this time the genetic etiologic association between breast and ovarian cancer was also being investigated; first put forward by Henry Lynch who collected pedigrees and samples from high risk breast and/or ovarian cancer families showing autosomal dominant inheritance patterns for breast cancer in the late 1960s (Lynch et al, 1972), and identifying HBOC families long before the discovery of breast cancer susceptibility genes. In the past two decades however, since the identification of increased genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer, in particular the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations, the role of prophylactic oophorectomy has become more clearly defined, particularly in the setting of HBOC.

#### **2. Identification of HBOC associated mutations and risks of breast and ovarian cancer**

In the early nineties, the first breast cancer susceptibility gene – BRCA1 (Miki et al, 1994) and the second BRCA2 (Wooster et al, 1995) were identified as the cause of genetic predisposition in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. This milestone in breast and ovarian cancer research was one of the most significant cancer discoveries of the twentieth century, both in terms of scientific impact and public interest. These breakthroughs were the culmination of five years of focused work based on the report in 1990 by Marie Claire King's group who undertook segregation analyses on breast cancer pedigrees and mapped a predisposing gene for both breast and ovarian cancer to chromosome 17q (Hall et al, 1990). Following this report a collaboration of international groups, termed "The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium" further specified the site of the BRCA1 locus by linkage analysis (Easton et al, 1993). The 1994 report from Miki *et al* outlined the exact structure of the BRCA1 gene which had been determined by a team of scientists at the University of Utah using positional cloning techniques (Miki et al, 1994). The second predisposition gene, BRCA2 was mapped to chromosome 13 and reported by Wooster *et al* in the UK (Wooster et al, 1994; 1995).

At a molecular level, BRCA1 is a 100kb gene located on chromosome 17q21.1. It consists of 24 exons, 22 of which encode for a 1863 amino-acid nucleoprotein. BRCA2 is an even larger gene composed of 27 exons distributed over 70kb of genomic DNA on chromosome 13q12– q13, and enocoding for a protein of 3418 amino acids. The complete repertoire of function of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins has not yet been determined, however several functions have been uncovered; both proteins are integral to the DNA damage response pathway and facilitate DNA damage repair through homologous recombination. BRCA1 also plays a role in cell-cycle control, gene expression control, protein ubiquination and chromatin remodelling (Aiyar et al, 2007; Foulkes 2010; Huen et al, 2010; Ma et al, 2010). In cells which are deficient in BRCA1 or BRCA2, double-strand breaks may be repaired in an erroneous

premenopausal oophorectomy decreased the rate of subsequent breast cancer (Feinleib, 1968) however it was a further twenty years before Brinton proposed the potential of oophorectomy as a breast cancer *prevention* strategy, reporting that women, with a family history of breast cancer, who underwent oophorectomy before the age of 40 years had a 45% reduction in breast cancer risk compared with women who underwent natural menopause (Brinton et al, 1988). Meijer and van Lindert similarly reported that surgery performed before the age of natural menopause significantly reduced breast cancer risk (Meijer & van Lindert, 1992). These studies commented on patients with a family history of breast cancer, introducing the role of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (PSO) as a risk reducing strategy in hereditary breast cancer. At this time the genetic etiologic association between breast and ovarian cancer was also being investigated; first put forward by Henry Lynch who collected pedigrees and samples from high risk breast and/or ovarian cancer families showing autosomal dominant inheritance patterns for breast cancer in the late 1960s (Lynch et al, 1972), and identifying HBOC families long before the discovery of breast cancer susceptibility genes. In the past two decades however, since the identification of increased genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer, in particular the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations, the role of prophylactic oophorectomy has become more clearly defined,

**2. Identification of HBOC associated mutations and risks of breast and** 

In the early nineties, the first breast cancer susceptibility gene – BRCA1 (Miki et al, 1994) and the second BRCA2 (Wooster et al, 1995) were identified as the cause of genetic predisposition in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. This milestone in breast and ovarian cancer research was one of the most significant cancer discoveries of the twentieth century, both in terms of scientific impact and public interest. These breakthroughs were the culmination of five years of focused work based on the report in 1990 by Marie Claire King's group who undertook segregation analyses on breast cancer pedigrees and mapped a predisposing gene for both breast and ovarian cancer to chromosome 17q (Hall et al, 1990). Following this report a collaboration of international groups, termed "The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium" further specified the site of the BRCA1 locus by linkage analysis (Easton et al, 1993). The 1994 report from Miki *et al* outlined the exact structure of the BRCA1 gene which had been determined by a team of scientists at the University of Utah using positional cloning techniques (Miki et al, 1994). The second predisposition gene, BRCA2 was mapped to chromosome 13 and reported

At a molecular level, BRCA1 is a 100kb gene located on chromosome 17q21.1. It consists of 24 exons, 22 of which encode for a 1863 amino-acid nucleoprotein. BRCA2 is an even larger gene composed of 27 exons distributed over 70kb of genomic DNA on chromosome 13q12– q13, and enocoding for a protein of 3418 amino acids. The complete repertoire of function of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins has not yet been determined, however several functions have been uncovered; both proteins are integral to the DNA damage response pathway and facilitate DNA damage repair through homologous recombination. BRCA1 also plays a role in cell-cycle control, gene expression control, protein ubiquination and chromatin remodelling (Aiyar et al, 2007; Foulkes 2010; Huen et al, 2010; Ma et al, 2010). In cells which are deficient in BRCA1 or BRCA2, double-strand breaks may be repaired in an erroneous

particularly in the setting of HBOC.

by Wooster *et al* in the UK (Wooster et al, 1994; 1995).

**ovarian cancer** 

manner (non-homologous end-joining), which may lead to chromosomal rearrangements. The resultant chromosomal instability is a key feature of carcinogenesis. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are classified as tumour suppressor genes, and since their discovery, hundreds of different mutations have been reported in these genes. The prevalence of BRCA mutations in most European and North American countries is reported as 0.06 – 0.24% (Malone et al, 2006; Whittemore et al, 1997 & 2004). However there are specific populations in which the frequency of mutations are higher due to strong founder effect; these include ethnic and geographic populations worldwide including those of Norwegian, Dutch and Icelandic descent (Neuhausen et al, 2009). The Ashkenazi Jewish population is perhaps the best characterised example; three specific mutations; 185delAG and 5382insC in the BRCA1 gene, and 6174delT in BRCA2 are the most common mutations in this population and have been found to occur with frequencies of 2-2.5% which is at least five times that of the general population (Ferla et al, 2007; Neuhausen et al, 2009; Struewing et al, 1997; Warner et al, 1999), thus endowing this population with a significantly increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

The risk of breast and ovarian cancer in the general population is 10-13% and 1.7% respectively. This risk is significantly elevated in women carrying mutations of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a 54-85% and 45% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, respectively and an 18-60% and 11-27% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer (Antoniou et al, 2003; Easton et al, 1995; King et al, 2003). Furthermore, BRCA1 mutation carriers are at increased risk for fallopian tube carcinoma (Paley et al, 2001; Zweemer et al, 2000), primary peritoneal carcinoma (Levine et al, 2003; Olivier et al, 2004), and uterine serous papillary carcinoma (Biron-shental et al, 2006). BRCA2 mutations are also associated with increased risk for a variety of other cancers including melanoma, pancreas, bone, hepatobiliary and pharyngeal cancer (Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium, 1999). Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with an increased risk of male breast cancer (Tai et al, 2007) and early onset prostate cancer (Agalliu et al, 2009; Mitra et al, 2008).

It is important to note that the breast and ovarian cancers in patients with a BRCA mutation exhibit phenotypic characteristics that are distinct from sporadic cancers, a fact that may have implications for local and systemic treatment. The ovarian cancers in families with BRCA mutations are predominantly histologically serous adenocarcinomas frequently exhibiting papillary changes; epithelial ovarian adenocarcinomas that occur in patients with transmitted germ-line BRCA1 mutations are characteristically high-grade with underpresentation of mucinous or borderline tumours (Kurian et al, 2005; Chiaffarino et al, 2007). Hereditary breast cancers due to BRCA mutations occur at a much younger age than sporadic cancers, and are more likely to be multi-focal and bilateral. BRCA 1 and BRCA2 related breast cancers however, have a distinct morphologic and molecular signature (Bane et al, 2007; Foulkes et al, 2003). The breast cancers that develop in BRCA2 gene mutation carriers are similar to sporadic breast cancers, they are more likely to exhibit the luminal phenotype of breast cancer and express the oestrogen receptor. Conversely, the breast cancers associated with BRCA1 mutation usually exhibit a distinct basal phenotype (Foulkes et al, 2003) characterised by lack of estrogen, progesterone and HER2/neu receptors and abundant expression of basal-type cytokeratins. The basal subtype of breast cancer is an aggressive form of tumour associated with increased metastatic potential and decreased overall survival (Billar et al, 2010; Dent et al, 2007) ; the poor prognosis and high recurrence

The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

**3.2 Breast cancer reduction** 

factors in the patients clinical history.

regarding this risk when making a decision regarding PSO.

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 349

refers to diffuse involvement of the peritoneal surfaces with a neoplasm bearing all the histological characteristics of papillary serous carcinoma of the ovary which can occur even after oophorectomy. This phenomenon was initially reported by Tobacman who reported an adenocacinoma indistinguishable from ovarian cancer after oophorectomy in women with a strong family history of ovarian cancer (Tobacman et al, 1982). The source of this extraovarian malignancy may be any of the following; microscopic foci of residual ovary, preexisting carcinomatosis not detected at the time of prophylactic surgery, or multifocal origin of peritoneal tissue which shares a common embryonic origin with mullerian duct epithelium. The reported incidence of papillary serous adenocarcinoma in BRCA mutation carriers following PSO is 4.3% (Finch et al, 2006) and women should be counselled

The reduction in breast cancer risk associated with PSO in BRCA mutation carriers is approximately 50%. In the 2002 report from Rebbeck et al the incidence of breast cancer in patients who underwent PSO was 21.1% compared to 42.3 % in those who did not (Rebbeck et al, 2002). Kauff et al reported an even greater risk reduction of 68% in subsequent breast cancer for BRCA mutation carriers who underwent PSO (Kauff et al, 2002), they subsequently reported a 72% reduction in BRCA2 associated breast cancer risk following PSO, but no statistically significant reduction in BRCA1 associated breast cancer (Kauff et al, 2008). In a case control study of over 3,000 patients, Eisen et al reported a reduction in breast cancer risk of 56% in the BRCA1 mutation carriers, and 46% in the BRCA2 mutation carriers who underwent PSO (n=166) (Eisen et al, 2005). Kramer et al prospectively evaluated the risk of breast cancer in 98 patients with, and 353 without BRCA1 mutations, and found that among BRCA1 mutation carriers oophorectomy was associated with a 62% reduction in breast cancer risk (Kramer et al, 2005). In the 2009 meta-analysis performed by Rebbeck et al, PSO was associated with a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer risk of approximately 50% for both BRCA1 (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.64) and BRCA2 (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.84) mutation carriers (Rebbeck et al, 2009). Some of the prospective studies included in this meta-analysis had suggested that there may be a difference in risk reduction between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers depending on the specific mutation (Kramer et al, 2005, Kauff et al, 2008), however the data in retrospective series was inconsistent and insufficient to provide any definitive evidence in this regard. Thus, it was confirmed that there is a reduction in both ovarian and breast cancer risk following PSO in BRCA mutation carriers, but questions regarding the differential magnitude of risk reduction according to clinical variables such as the specific BRCA mutation (i.e. BRCA1 or BRCA2), or other

It was with these questions in mind that Domcheck and colleagues prospectively analysed the largest cohort to date of BRCA mutation carriers, reporting risk reduction after PSO considering a number of different scenarios (Domcheck, 2010). The authors prospectively followed 2, 482 women with BRCA mutations identified between 1974 and 2008. The median follow up for patients who underwent prophylactic surgery was 3.65 years, and 4.29 years in those who did not opt for prophylactic surgery. A total of 993 women underwent PSO; of these 1.1% were subsequently diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 11.4% were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer and the all cause mortality was 3%. This

rate of these tumours has raised the question of whether BRCA1 breast cancers have a poorer outcome than sporadic breast cancers. The evidence supports an increased risk for contralateral breast cancer, but the data assessing local recurrence are inconsistent and overall survival appears to be similar (Liebens et al, 2007; Brekelmans et al, 2007). Breast conserving therapy should be employed with caution in women with hereditary BRCA related breast cancer in view of the increased likelihood of multicentricity and contralateral breast cancer.

#### **3. Risk reducing effect of PSO on ovarian & breast cancer**

Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to decrease the risk of both breast cancer and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers (Domchek et al, 2006, 2010 ; Eisen et al, 2005; Finch et al, 2006; Kauff et al, 2002, 2008 ; Kramer et al, 2005; Rebbeck et al, 1999, 2002, 2009 ; Rutter et al, 2003) This evidence is predominantly based on the results of observational case control and cohort studies. There are no randomised clinical trials of PSO and these may not be feasible or ethically appropriate (Klaren et al, 2003). Rebbeck and colleagues were among the first to provide evidence of the risk reducing effect of PSO in BRCA mutation carriers; in 1999 they reported a 47% decreased risk of breast cancer in a series of 43 women with a BRCA1 mutation who underwent PSO compared to 79 matched controls who did not undergo PSO (Rebbeck et al, 1999). The findings from this relatively small series were enough to trigger a number of larger series, investigating health outcomes following PSO in patients with known BRCA mutations, in an effort to establish whether this risk-reducing effect was significant enough to incorporate PSO into routine clinical practice as a cancer prevention strategy.

#### **3.1 Ovarian cancer reduction**

In 2002, Rebbeck reported ovarian cancer incidence in a larger series of 551 BRCA mutation carriers, 259 who underwent PSO and 292 who did not (Rebbeck et al, 2002). After 8 years follow-up the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer was significantly reduced by 96% in the patients who had undergone prophylactic oophorectomy (HR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.16). In the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Kauff et al published their results from the first prospective series of 173 BRCA mutation carriers, of whom 101 underwent PSO (Kauff et al, 2002). In this series, PSO was associated with an 85% reduction in subsequent ovarian cancer. These findings have been substantiated in a number of subsequent series; in a prospective study of 1828 BRCA mutation carriers Finch *et al* reported a significantly lower ovarian cancer risk after PSO (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.07-0.58) (Finch et al, 2006). A prospective multicentre study of 1079 BRCA mutation carriers demonstrated that PSO significantly reduced the risk of BRCA1 associated gynaecologic cancer risk (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.56), however this reduction was not observed in patients with a BRCA2 mutation (Kauff et al, 2008). In 2009 a meta-analysis of the published literature, including 10 studies, was performed to assess the magnitude of the risk reduction effect (Rebbeck et al, 2009), the results of which showed an 80% reduction in ovarian/fallopian tube cancer risk associated with PSO in women carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

The efficacy of prophylactic oophorectomy for reduction of ovarian cancer risk is somewhat compromised by the residual risk of papillary serous carcinoma of the peritoneum; this refers to diffuse involvement of the peritoneal surfaces with a neoplasm bearing all the histological characteristics of papillary serous carcinoma of the ovary which can occur even after oophorectomy. This phenomenon was initially reported by Tobacman who reported an adenocacinoma indistinguishable from ovarian cancer after oophorectomy in women with a strong family history of ovarian cancer (Tobacman et al, 1982). The source of this extraovarian malignancy may be any of the following; microscopic foci of residual ovary, preexisting carcinomatosis not detected at the time of prophylactic surgery, or multifocal origin of peritoneal tissue which shares a common embryonic origin with mullerian duct epithelium. The reported incidence of papillary serous adenocarcinoma in BRCA mutation carriers following PSO is 4.3% (Finch et al, 2006) and women should be counselled regarding this risk when making a decision regarding PSO.

## **3.2 Breast cancer reduction**

348 Hysterectomy

rate of these tumours has raised the question of whether BRCA1 breast cancers have a poorer outcome than sporadic breast cancers. The evidence supports an increased risk for contralateral breast cancer, but the data assessing local recurrence are inconsistent and overall survival appears to be similar (Liebens et al, 2007; Brekelmans et al, 2007). Breast conserving therapy should be employed with caution in women with hereditary BRCA related breast cancer in view of the increased likelihood of multicentricity and contralateral

Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to decrease the risk of both breast cancer and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers (Domchek et al, 2006, 2010 ; Eisen et al, 2005; Finch et al, 2006; Kauff et al, 2002, 2008 ; Kramer et al, 2005; Rebbeck et al, 1999, 2002, 2009 ; Rutter et al, 2003) This evidence is predominantly based on the results of observational case control and cohort studies. There are no randomised clinical trials of PSO and these may not be feasible or ethically appropriate (Klaren et al, 2003). Rebbeck and colleagues were among the first to provide evidence of the risk reducing effect of PSO in BRCA mutation carriers; in 1999 they reported a 47% decreased risk of breast cancer in a series of 43 women with a BRCA1 mutation who underwent PSO compared to 79 matched controls who did not undergo PSO (Rebbeck et al, 1999). The findings from this relatively small series were enough to trigger a number of larger series, investigating health outcomes following PSO in patients with known BRCA mutations, in an effort to establish whether this risk-reducing effect was significant enough to incorporate PSO into routine

In 2002, Rebbeck reported ovarian cancer incidence in a larger series of 551 BRCA mutation carriers, 259 who underwent PSO and 292 who did not (Rebbeck et al, 2002). After 8 years follow-up the risk of coelomic epithelial cancer was significantly reduced by 96% in the patients who had undergone prophylactic oophorectomy (HR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.16). In the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Kauff et al published their results from the first prospective series of 173 BRCA mutation carriers, of whom 101 underwent PSO (Kauff et al, 2002). In this series, PSO was associated with an 85% reduction in subsequent ovarian cancer. These findings have been substantiated in a number of subsequent series; in a prospective study of 1828 BRCA mutation carriers Finch *et al* reported a significantly lower ovarian cancer risk after PSO (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.07-0.58) (Finch et al, 2006). A prospective multicentre study of 1079 BRCA mutation carriers demonstrated that PSO significantly reduced the risk of BRCA1 associated gynaecologic cancer risk (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.56), however this reduction was not observed in patients with a BRCA2 mutation (Kauff et al, 2008). In 2009 a meta-analysis of the published literature, including 10 studies, was performed to assess the magnitude of the risk reduction effect (Rebbeck et al, 2009), the results of which showed an 80% reduction in ovarian/fallopian tube cancer risk associated

The efficacy of prophylactic oophorectomy for reduction of ovarian cancer risk is somewhat compromised by the residual risk of papillary serous carcinoma of the peritoneum; this

**3. Risk reducing effect of PSO on ovarian & breast cancer** 

clinical practice as a cancer prevention strategy.

with PSO in women carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

**3.1 Ovarian cancer reduction** 

breast cancer.

The reduction in breast cancer risk associated with PSO in BRCA mutation carriers is approximately 50%. In the 2002 report from Rebbeck et al the incidence of breast cancer in patients who underwent PSO was 21.1% compared to 42.3 % in those who did not (Rebbeck et al, 2002). Kauff et al reported an even greater risk reduction of 68% in subsequent breast cancer for BRCA mutation carriers who underwent PSO (Kauff et al, 2002), they subsequently reported a 72% reduction in BRCA2 associated breast cancer risk following PSO, but no statistically significant reduction in BRCA1 associated breast cancer (Kauff et al, 2008). In a case control study of over 3,000 patients, Eisen et al reported a reduction in breast cancer risk of 56% in the BRCA1 mutation carriers, and 46% in the BRCA2 mutation carriers who underwent PSO (n=166) (Eisen et al, 2005). Kramer et al prospectively evaluated the risk of breast cancer in 98 patients with, and 353 without BRCA1 mutations, and found that among BRCA1 mutation carriers oophorectomy was associated with a 62% reduction in breast cancer risk (Kramer et al, 2005). In the 2009 meta-analysis performed by Rebbeck et al, PSO was associated with a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer risk of approximately 50% for both BRCA1 (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.64) and BRCA2 (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.84) mutation carriers (Rebbeck et al, 2009). Some of the prospective studies included in this meta-analysis had suggested that there may be a difference in risk reduction between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers depending on the specific mutation (Kramer et al, 2005, Kauff et al, 2008), however the data in retrospective series was inconsistent and insufficient to provide any definitive evidence in this regard. Thus, it was confirmed that there is a reduction in both ovarian and breast cancer risk following PSO in BRCA mutation carriers, but questions regarding the differential magnitude of risk reduction according to clinical variables such as the specific BRCA mutation (i.e. BRCA1 or BRCA2), or other factors in the patients clinical history.

It was with these questions in mind that Domcheck and colleagues prospectively analysed the largest cohort to date of BRCA mutation carriers, reporting risk reduction after PSO considering a number of different scenarios (Domcheck, 2010). The authors prospectively followed 2, 482 women with BRCA mutations identified between 1974 and 2008. The median follow up for patients who underwent prophylactic surgery was 3.65 years, and 4.29 years in those who did not opt for prophylactic surgery. A total of 993 women underwent PSO; of these 1.1% were subsequently diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 11.4% were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer and the all cause mortality was 3%. This

The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

process.

**4.1 Timing of PSO** 

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 351

Clearly, such recommendations are meant to lower the woman's risk or identify a cancer as early as possible in the development of the disease. While PSO is an acceptable risk reduction strategy for many BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers, the decision to undergo prophylactic surgery is a complex one, and there are a number of considerations which should be taken into account and discussed with patients during the decision making

As evidence supporting a risk reducing role for PSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers accumulates, the clinical management of cancer risk in these patients remains complex and multifactorial; one issue that remains incompletely resolved is the optimum timing of PSO. Eisen *et al* reported improved risk reduction in BRCA mutation carriers who underwent PSO before the age of 50 years compared to those older than 50 years at the time of surgery (Eisen et al, 2005). These findings are supported by results from Domchek's series in which there was a reduction in breast cancer risk in patients who underwent PSO before the age of 50 years, but no significant reduction in women over 50 years of age. These studies are limited by small numbers in subgroup analyses and a limited follow-up time, leaving this question incompletely addressed by the currently available data. As outlined above, the current recommendations from the NCCN is that prophylactic oophorectomy should be offered to patients between the ages of 35 and 40 years, or when the woman has finished childbearing. The risk-reduction benefit of oophorectomy must be balanced against the side effects and potential morbidity associated with early menopause. This is highlighted by evidence suggesting that PSO in women under the age of 45 years is associated with increased mortality, particularly in patients who do not receive hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (Rocca et al, 2006). Women with a BRCA mutation have a unique risk and benefit profile which must be considered when making recommendations regarding the use of HRT following PSO in the premenopausal age-group. HRT is the most effective strategy for the management of postmenopausal symptoms and sequelae such as osteoporosis and cardiovascular risk in young females undergoing abrupt menopause through PSO. However, its use in patients with an increased risk of breast cancer has been questioned since the publication of Women's Health Initiative studies which provided evidence of a breast cancer risk associated with combined oestrogen and progestin hormone

The PROSE study group in a prospective multicentre study of 462 patients with BRCA mutation found that the breast cancer risk reduction/protective effect attained following PSO was not significantly changed by the use of HRT (Rebbeck et al, 2005). Similarly, Eisen et al observed no increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT use in patients following PSO (Eisen et al, 2005). Armstrong et al developed a Markov decision analytical model to calculate the impact of prophylactic oophorectomy and HRT use on breast and ovarian cancer risk, cardiac disease, osteoporosis and venous thrombosis (Armstrong et al, 2004). This model predicted that BRCA mutation carriers undergoing PSO between the ages of 30 and 40 years would obtain a significant gain in life expectancy irrespective of HRT use. However, this gain in life is predicted to decrease as the age at time of PSO increases. The short term use of HRT does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, and should be

**4. Practical considerations: Timing & approach to surgery** 

replacement therapy (Beral et al, 2003; Rossouw et al, 2002).

represents a significant reduction when compared with women who did not undergo PSO, of whom 5.8% were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 19.2% were diagnosed with breast cancer, and all cause mortality was 9.8%. These findings again confirmed the risk reducing effect of PSO in both breast and ovarian cancer. In this series, however a previous diagnosis of breast cancer was accounted for and it was found that the risk of ovarian cancer was reduced in BRCA mutation carriers with and without a history of breast cancer. However, the risk of breast cancer was reduced following PSO in those without prior breast cancer, but PSO had no effect on the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer in patients who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis. This is an interesting finding and may relate to the fact that patients who have previously been treated for breast cancer with cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents inducing a menopausal state derive no further benefit from oophorectomy. Unfortunately this series was limited by insufficient adjuvant therapy data and this question may be further addressed in future prospective series. Another interesting finding in this series was the difference in breast cancer risk reduction following PSO in BRCA2 mutation carriers (64%) compared to BRCA1 mutation carriers (37%), which had previously been reported in smaller prospective studies (Kauff et al, 2008). It is possible that this difference relates to the distinction in breast cancer phenotype exhibited in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. In the BRCA2 cohort there is a high proportion of ER-positive breast tumours and it has been hypothesized that PSO may actually "treat" subclinical breast tumours present at the time of oophorectomy (Rebbeck et al, 2009). Such a treatment effect would not be evident in BRCA1 tumours which are predominantly ER-negative. The "protective" effect of PSO may take longer to become evident, thus a longer follow up time in addition to mechanistic studies may be required to definitively answer this question.

In conclusion, PSO has been proven to be associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer risk of approximately 80% and a reduction in breast cancer risk of approximately 50%, with the most recent analyses suggesting that the risk reducing effect may be more pronounced in BRCA2 mutation carriers (Domchek, 2010). Despite the uncertainties that remain to be addressed regarding the extent of risk reduction according to specific clinical variables, the evidence has sufficiently demonstrated a reduction in breast and ovarian cancer risk following PSO in patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has incorporated this strategy into guidelines for recommended management of individuals carrying a BRCA mutation. These guidelines are as follows:


Clearly, such recommendations are meant to lower the woman's risk or identify a cancer as early as possible in the development of the disease. While PSO is an acceptable risk reduction strategy for many BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers, the decision to undergo prophylactic surgery is a complex one, and there are a number of considerations which should be taken into account and discussed with patients during the decision making process.

## **4. Practical considerations: Timing & approach to surgery**

## **4.1 Timing of PSO**

350 Hysterectomy

represents a significant reduction when compared with women who did not undergo PSO, of whom 5.8% were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 19.2% were diagnosed with breast cancer, and all cause mortality was 9.8%. These findings again confirmed the risk reducing effect of PSO in both breast and ovarian cancer. In this series, however a previous diagnosis of breast cancer was accounted for and it was found that the risk of ovarian cancer was reduced in BRCA mutation carriers with and without a history of breast cancer. However, the risk of breast cancer was reduced following PSO in those without prior breast cancer, but PSO had no effect on the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer in patients who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis. This is an interesting finding and may relate to the fact that patients who have previously been treated for breast cancer with cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents inducing a menopausal state derive no further benefit from oophorectomy. Unfortunately this series was limited by insufficient adjuvant therapy data and this question may be further addressed in future prospective series. Another interesting finding in this series was the difference in breast cancer risk reduction following PSO in BRCA2 mutation carriers (64%) compared to BRCA1 mutation carriers (37%), which had previously been reported in smaller prospective studies (Kauff et al, 2008). It is possible that this difference relates to the distinction in breast cancer phenotype exhibited in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. In the BRCA2 cohort there is a high proportion of ER-positive breast tumours and it has been hypothesized that PSO may actually "treat" subclinical breast tumours present at the time of oophorectomy (Rebbeck et al, 2009). Such a treatment effect would not be evident in BRCA1 tumours which are predominantly ER-negative. The "protective" effect of PSO may take longer to become evident, thus a longer follow up time in addition to

mechanistic studies may be required to definitively answer this question.

Self-breast examination monthly starting at age 18 years

the first diagnosed case of ovarian cancer in the family

Consider chemoprevention options (e.g tamoxifen)

Clinical breast examination semi-annually starting at age 25 years

as follows:

onset in family

childbearing

In conclusion, PSO has been proven to be associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer risk of approximately 80% and a reduction in breast cancer risk of approximately 50%, with the most recent analyses suggesting that the risk reducing effect may be more pronounced in BRCA2 mutation carriers (Domchek, 2010). Despite the uncertainties that remain to be addressed regarding the extent of risk reduction according to specific clinical variables, the evidence has sufficiently demonstrated a reduction in breast and ovarian cancer risk following PSO in patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has incorporated this strategy into guidelines for recommended management of individuals carrying a BRCA mutation. These guidelines are

Annual mammogram and breast MRI starting at age 25 years or based on earliest age of

Prophylactic oopherectomy between ages 35 and 40 years or upon completion of

 For individuals not electing a prophylactic oophorectomy, concurrent transvaginal ultrasound and CA125 levels semi-annually starting at age 35 years or 5-10 earlier than

Consider research studies testing investigational imaging and screening options.

As evidence supporting a risk reducing role for PSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers accumulates, the clinical management of cancer risk in these patients remains complex and multifactorial; one issue that remains incompletely resolved is the optimum timing of PSO. Eisen *et al* reported improved risk reduction in BRCA mutation carriers who underwent PSO before the age of 50 years compared to those older than 50 years at the time of surgery (Eisen et al, 2005). These findings are supported by results from Domchek's series in which there was a reduction in breast cancer risk in patients who underwent PSO before the age of 50 years, but no significant reduction in women over 50 years of age. These studies are limited by small numbers in subgroup analyses and a limited follow-up time, leaving this question incompletely addressed by the currently available data. As outlined above, the current recommendations from the NCCN is that prophylactic oophorectomy should be offered to patients between the ages of 35 and 40 years, or when the woman has finished childbearing. The risk-reduction benefit of oophorectomy must be balanced against the side effects and potential morbidity associated with early menopause. This is highlighted by evidence suggesting that PSO in women under the age of 45 years is associated with increased mortality, particularly in patients who do not receive hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (Rocca et al, 2006). Women with a BRCA mutation have a unique risk and benefit profile which must be considered when making recommendations regarding the use of HRT following PSO in the premenopausal age-group. HRT is the most effective strategy for the management of postmenopausal symptoms and sequelae such as osteoporosis and cardiovascular risk in young females undergoing abrupt menopause through PSO. However, its use in patients with an increased risk of breast cancer has been questioned since the publication of Women's Health Initiative studies which provided evidence of a breast cancer risk associated with combined oestrogen and progestin hormone replacement therapy (Beral et al, 2003; Rossouw et al, 2002).

The PROSE study group in a prospective multicentre study of 462 patients with BRCA mutation found that the breast cancer risk reduction/protective effect attained following PSO was not significantly changed by the use of HRT (Rebbeck et al, 2005). Similarly, Eisen et al observed no increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT use in patients following PSO (Eisen et al, 2005). Armstrong et al developed a Markov decision analytical model to calculate the impact of prophylactic oophorectomy and HRT use on breast and ovarian cancer risk, cardiac disease, osteoporosis and venous thrombosis (Armstrong et al, 2004). This model predicted that BRCA mutation carriers undergoing PSO between the ages of 30 and 40 years would obtain a significant gain in life expectancy irrespective of HRT use. However, this gain in life is predicted to decrease as the age at time of PSO increases. The short term use of HRT does not appear to increase breast cancer risk, and should be

The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

patient underwent concomitant hysterectomy at the time of PSO.

due to the favourable cosmetic outcome and rapid recovery time.

with patients on an individual basis to aid the decision making process.

As outlined, there are a number of considerations which must be taken into account when planning and counselling a patient for PSO. The timing of surgery, surgical approach, use of HRT and the risks and benefits of hysterectomy at the time of PSO should all be discussed

**5. Morbidity associated with prophylactic oophorectomy and issues of regret**  Despite the lack of evidence that ovarian cancer screening is effective in reducing the risk of developing ovarian cancer or in reducing the risk of death from ovarian cancer (Stirling et

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 353

of breast cancer and in women with an increased risk of breast cancer, Tamoxifen is frequently offered as chemoprevention to BRCA mutation carriers who do not choose to undergo prophylactic mastectomy (Eisen & Weber, 2001). Risks and side effects must be considered when proposing Tamoxifen as a chemopreventive strategy, and consist predominantly of vascular, thromboembolic and neoplastic events. Tamoxifen use has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of uterine malignancy, including early stage adenocarcinomas , endometriod, mucinous, clear cell and uterine sarcomas. A meta-analysis of the breast cancer prevention trials reported more than doubling of uterine cancer with tamoxifen use (Cuzick et al, 2003). This is a risk of malignancy that would be negated if the

**Surgical Approach:** Laparoscopy has become the most commonly used approach to PSO as it offers many advantages in improved visualisation of the pelvic peritoneum, avoidance of a large abdominal incision, shorter hospital stay, decreased post-operative pain and a rapid recovery time (Hidlebaugh et al, 1996; Leetanaporn & Tintara, 1996). Traditionally, a total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and PSO has been associated with a higher morbidity and longer recovery time when compared with laparoscopic PSO, a factor which may influence the decision to undergo concomitant hysterectomy. However, the last decade has seen an increase in the laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy which has been successfully employed for endometrial and cervical malignancy with comparable surgical and oncologic outcomes to laparotomy (Cho et al, 2007; Eltabbakh et al, 2000). Laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy combined with laparoscopic PSO is a feasible minimally invasive approach to risk reducing surgery in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations (Casey et al, 1998; Eltabbakh et al, 1999). Recent advances have seen the development of an even less invasive approach to laparoscopic surgery known as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). This approach uses a single port which accommodates the camera and operating instruments, needing only a single incision (Canes et al, 2008). This approach to gynaecologic surgery has been pioneered by Escobar and colleagues in the Cleveland Clinic who have reported its use in benign and malignant gynaecologic conditions (Escobar et al, 2009 & 2010; Fader et al, 2009). This group have recently reported on a retrospective series of 58 patients at high risk for breast/ovarian cancer who underwent LESS PSO with (n=13) and without (n=45) hysterectomy (Escobar et al, 2010). All cases were performed successfully with LESS in a mean operative time of 38 minutes (35minutes without hysterectomy and 42 minutes with hysterectomy), and there were no surgical complications. The majority of patients had this procedure performed as day case surgery. Although larger prospective studies are required to validate these results, this single – port laparoscopic approach represents an advance in minimally invasive gynaecologic surgery that may become an attractive option for BRCA mutation carriers and breast cancer patients

considered in young patients to alleviate menopausal symptoms which may interfere with quality of life. In high-risk patients carrying a BRCA mutation, estrogen-only HRT is preferable.

#### **4.2 Surgical approach**

The extent of gynaecologic surgery in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations has been the subject of debate in view of the risk of proximal fallopian tube malignancy and subsequent peritoneal cancer of ovarian origin in patients post oophorectomy. For risk-reducing surgery to be successful all of the "at risk" tissue should be removed. It is essential that the fallopian tube is resected as close as possible to the uterine cornua to prevent the occurrence of proximal fallopian tube malignancy. Indeed the risk of proximal fallopian tube malignancy in the uterine fundus and the low risk of uterine papillary carcinoma in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers raises the question of whether these patients should undergo concomitant hysterectomy as part of risk reducing surgery (Biron-Shental et al, 2006; Hornreich et al, 1999; Paley et al, 2001). Removal of the entire fallopian tube can be optimally accomplished by performing a hysterectomy but the majority (92%) of fallopian tube malignancies occur in the mid and distal portions of the tube (Alvarado-Cabrero et al, 1999) thus there is little evidence to support systematic hysterectomy at the time of PSO on this basis. However there are other factors which may influence decisions regarding whether hysterectomy is performed at the time of salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers:

**HRT use:** Post-PSO HRT does not appear to increase the risk of cancer in premenopausal women who undergo PSO (Rebbeck et al, 2005). However, unopposed oestrogen does pose a substantial risk of uterine cancer while combined HRT has been shown in the Women's Health Initiative studies to increase the risk of breast cancer (Beral et al, 2003; Grady et al, 1995; Rossouw et al, 2002). Hysterectomy at the time of PSO would negate the uterine cancer risk facilitating the use of unopposed oestrogen as HRT in these patients.

**Tamoxifen chemoprevention:** Tamoxifen is a selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM) which is routinely used as adjuvant therapy in women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer to prevent the development of cancer in the contralateral breast and to prolong disease free survival (Osborne, 1998). Tamoxifen has also been shown to reduce the risk of developing cancer in high risk women without prior breast cancer and can be used as a chemoprevention strategy in these patients to reduce the risk of invasive ER positive breast cancer (Visvanathan et al, 2009). Regarding BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers specifically, tamoxifen use has been shown to reduce the incidence of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers with a prior history of breast cancer (Metcalfe et al, 2004; Narod et al, 2000). The protective effect of tamoxifen in BRCA mutation carriers without prior breast cancer has been less well defined and the available evidence is extrapolated from subset analyses of large randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of chemoprevention for breast cancer in the general population. A subgroup analysis of the NSABP-P1 data (King et al, 2001) was performed; only 19 of the 288 women who developed breast cancer had BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, and tamoxifen use did not appear to have a significant effect on breast cancer risk in these patients. In a review of the evidence regarding Tamoxifen use as chemoprevention in patients with a BRCA mutation, the ASCO panel concluded that the "limited evidence precludes reliable evidence of Tamoxifen effects in this setting". However as it has a proven risk reduction benefit in BRCA patients with a history

considered in young patients to alleviate menopausal symptoms which may interfere with quality of life. In high-risk patients carrying a BRCA mutation, estrogen-only HRT is

The extent of gynaecologic surgery in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations has been the subject of debate in view of the risk of proximal fallopian tube malignancy and subsequent peritoneal cancer of ovarian origin in patients post oophorectomy. For risk-reducing surgery to be successful all of the "at risk" tissue should be removed. It is essential that the fallopian tube is resected as close as possible to the uterine cornua to prevent the occurrence of proximal fallopian tube malignancy. Indeed the risk of proximal fallopian tube malignancy in the uterine fundus and the low risk of uterine papillary carcinoma in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers raises the question of whether these patients should undergo concomitant hysterectomy as part of risk reducing surgery (Biron-Shental et al, 2006; Hornreich et al, 1999; Paley et al, 2001). Removal of the entire fallopian tube can be optimally accomplished by performing a hysterectomy but the majority (92%) of fallopian tube malignancies occur in the mid and distal portions of the tube (Alvarado-Cabrero et al, 1999) thus there is little evidence to support systematic hysterectomy at the time of PSO on this basis. However there are other factors which may influence decisions regarding whether hysterectomy is

performed at the time of salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers:

risk facilitating the use of unopposed oestrogen as HRT in these patients.

**HRT use:** Post-PSO HRT does not appear to increase the risk of cancer in premenopausal women who undergo PSO (Rebbeck et al, 2005). However, unopposed oestrogen does pose a substantial risk of uterine cancer while combined HRT has been shown in the Women's Health Initiative studies to increase the risk of breast cancer (Beral et al, 2003; Grady et al, 1995; Rossouw et al, 2002). Hysterectomy at the time of PSO would negate the uterine cancer

**Tamoxifen chemoprevention:** Tamoxifen is a selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM) which is routinely used as adjuvant therapy in women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer to prevent the development of cancer in the contralateral breast and to prolong disease free survival (Osborne, 1998). Tamoxifen has also been shown to reduce the risk of developing cancer in high risk women without prior breast cancer and can be used as a chemoprevention strategy in these patients to reduce the risk of invasive ER positive breast cancer (Visvanathan et al, 2009). Regarding BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers specifically, tamoxifen use has been shown to reduce the incidence of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers with a prior history of breast cancer (Metcalfe et al, 2004; Narod et al, 2000). The protective effect of tamoxifen in BRCA mutation carriers without prior breast cancer has been less well defined and the available evidence is extrapolated from subset analyses of large randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of chemoprevention for breast cancer in the general population. A subgroup analysis of the NSABP-P1 data (King et al, 2001) was performed; only 19 of the 288 women who developed breast cancer had BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, and tamoxifen use did not appear to have a significant effect on breast cancer risk in these patients. In a review of the evidence regarding Tamoxifen use as chemoprevention in patients with a BRCA mutation, the ASCO panel concluded that the "limited evidence precludes reliable evidence of Tamoxifen effects in this setting". However as it has a proven risk reduction benefit in BRCA patients with a history

preferable.

**4.2 Surgical approach** 

of breast cancer and in women with an increased risk of breast cancer, Tamoxifen is frequently offered as chemoprevention to BRCA mutation carriers who do not choose to undergo prophylactic mastectomy (Eisen & Weber, 2001). Risks and side effects must be considered when proposing Tamoxifen as a chemopreventive strategy, and consist predominantly of vascular, thromboembolic and neoplastic events. Tamoxifen use has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of uterine malignancy, including early stage adenocarcinomas , endometriod, mucinous, clear cell and uterine sarcomas. A meta-analysis of the breast cancer prevention trials reported more than doubling of uterine cancer with tamoxifen use (Cuzick et al, 2003). This is a risk of malignancy that would be negated if the patient underwent concomitant hysterectomy at the time of PSO.

**Surgical Approach:** Laparoscopy has become the most commonly used approach to PSO as it offers many advantages in improved visualisation of the pelvic peritoneum, avoidance of a large abdominal incision, shorter hospital stay, decreased post-operative pain and a rapid recovery time (Hidlebaugh et al, 1996; Leetanaporn & Tintara, 1996). Traditionally, a total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and PSO has been associated with a higher morbidity and longer recovery time when compared with laparoscopic PSO, a factor which may influence the decision to undergo concomitant hysterectomy. However, the last decade has seen an increase in the laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy which has been successfully employed for endometrial and cervical malignancy with comparable surgical and oncologic outcomes to laparotomy (Cho et al, 2007; Eltabbakh et al, 2000). Laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy combined with laparoscopic PSO is a feasible minimally invasive approach to risk reducing surgery in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations (Casey et al, 1998; Eltabbakh et al, 1999). Recent advances have seen the development of an even less invasive approach to laparoscopic surgery known as laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). This approach uses a single port which accommodates the camera and operating instruments, needing only a single incision (Canes et al, 2008). This approach to gynaecologic surgery has been pioneered by Escobar and colleagues in the Cleveland Clinic who have reported its use in benign and malignant gynaecologic conditions (Escobar et al, 2009 & 2010; Fader et al, 2009). This group have recently reported on a retrospective series of 58 patients at high risk for breast/ovarian cancer who underwent LESS PSO with (n=13) and without (n=45) hysterectomy (Escobar et al, 2010). All cases were performed successfully with LESS in a mean operative time of 38 minutes (35minutes without hysterectomy and 42 minutes with hysterectomy), and there were no surgical complications. The majority of patients had this procedure performed as day case surgery. Although larger prospective studies are required to validate these results, this single – port laparoscopic approach represents an advance in minimally invasive gynaecologic surgery that may become an attractive option for BRCA mutation carriers and breast cancer patients due to the favourable cosmetic outcome and rapid recovery time.

As outlined, there are a number of considerations which must be taken into account when planning and counselling a patient for PSO. The timing of surgery, surgical approach, use of HRT and the risks and benefits of hysterectomy at the time of PSO should all be discussed with patients on an individual basis to aid the decision making process.

## **5. Morbidity associated with prophylactic oophorectomy and issues of regret**

Despite the lack of evidence that ovarian cancer screening is effective in reducing the risk of developing ovarian cancer or in reducing the risk of death from ovarian cancer (Stirling et

The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

patients (Miller et al, 2010)

cancer to improve survival.

**Breast cancer surveillance** 

**Ovarian cancer surveillance** 


chemoprevention.

**6.1 Surveillance** 

involves:

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 355

option to use HRT post PSO (Hallowell et al, 2004; Miller et al, 2010). Campfield-Bonadies et al recently reported the results of a questionnaire based study of BRCA carriers who had undergone PSO regarding their post-operative symptoms, their recollection of pre-operative counselling, and what information they would have found helpful to have prior to surgery (Campfield-Bonadies et al, 2011). It was found that most patients were counselled preoperatively regarding the impact of PSO on ovarian and breast cancer risk, the pros and cons of surgical approaches and the impact of surgery on menopause, however the most common surgical symptoms were vaginal dryness, changes in libido and sleep disturbances and the majority of women would have found it helpful to have more information regarding the impact of PSO on their sex life, the availability of sex counselling and the risk of coronary heart disease, which were not commonly discussed during pre-operative counselling. Despite this, the overall satisfaction with PSO remains high in this cohort of

Not all women who are diagnosed with a BRCA1/2 mutation will opt for PSO. Younger women who have not completed childbearing and wish to maintain fertility may seek alternative strategies to minimise risk or expedite diagnosis of a potential ovarian or breast

The alternative options to risk reducing surgery for these women are: surveillance or

The goal of surveillance is early detection of cancer. In the case of breast cancer, this



The advantages of surveillance are the fact that it is non-invasive, has no effect on fertility or childbearing, and leaves the other options for risk reduction available to the patient should

years younger than the earliest ovarian cancer diagnosis in the family

**6. Alternatives to surgery – Surveillance & chemoprevention** 


95% for the detection of breast cancer (Warner et al, 2001 & 2004).

Screening for the early detection of ovarian cancer involves:


al, 2005; Olivier et al, 2006), the uptake of PSO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is variable across published datasets.

Patients considering PSO are faced with complex information regarding cancer risk and the risk/benefit profile of prophylactic surgery including factors such as surgical risk, hormonal deprivation and residual cancer risk. It is important that patients are supported in processing this information in order to help them make the best individual decision. Numerous variables have been identified as factors in this decision making process. Demographically older women, women with children and married women are more likely to opt for PSO (Madalinska et al, 2007; Miller et al, 2010), an association which is not unsurprising as this cohort of women may have completed their childbearing and may not have to deal with the sudden severe menopausal symptoms that are associated with surgical menopause in younger women. Interestingly, a lower level of education is also associated with an increased likelihood to opt for PSO. Proposed explanations for this are that such patients may be more inclined to follow a gynaecologists recommendation for surgery without seeking alternative options, or that they may prefer a more definitive solution (surgery) to regain a sense of control (Hallowell et al, 2004; Madalinska et al, 2007; Miller et al, 2010). Clinical predictors of PSO include a family history of ovarian cancer and a personal history of breast cancer (Miller et al, 2010). The most consistent psychosocial predictor of PSO uptake is the patients perception of their own health and the risk of ovarian cancer; patients who perceive their own health as poor, patients who overestimate their ovarian cancer risk and those who view ovarian cancer as an incurable disease are more likely to opt for PSO as a risk reducing strategy (Miller et al, 2010). Importantly, a physician/gynaecologists recommendation is a powerful determinant of PSO uptake (Madalinska et al, 2007) and it has been reported that failure to discuss this option with the patient may be perceived as a recommendation against this strategy (Madalinska et al, 2007; Tiller et al, 2002). Ideally, all patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation should be offered comprehensive counselling regarding the risks of breast and ovarian cancer and the surveillance and risk-reducing strategies which may be undertaken.

In the course of such counselling, it is also important that the side-effects and potential outcomes of risk reducing surgery be discussed; surgical risk, residual cancer risk and the effects of hormonal deprivation should all be clearly explained to every patient considering risk reducing surgery. It is crucial to consider the impact of this surgery on premenopausal women in particular; the effect of menopausal symptoms, cognitive changes, loss of fertility, osteoporosis, heart disease, vasomotor symptoms, urogenital symptoms and the effect on sexuality and body image are all important factors that the patient should be aware of prior to surgery (Taylor, 2001). Qualitiative studies indicate that post surgery, the majority of women are satisfied with their decision to undergo PSO (Miller et al, 2010). There are a number of positive quality of life changes reported following PSO including a reduced perception of ovarian cancer risk, reduced anxiety levels and an increased sense of control over ones' health (Elit et al, 2001; Miller et al, 2010; Robson et al, 2003; Tiller et al, 2002). The majority of patients do report side effects related to hormonal deprivation, including hot flushes, vaginal dryness, decreased sexual interest and decreased sexual pleasure. These symptoms are most common in younger women (Miller et al, 2010; Robson et al, 2003). There is conflicting evidence regarding the level of patients satisfaction with pre-operative counselling with some women reporting that they were fully informed and others feeling that they could have been provided with more information, particularly regarding the option to use HRT post PSO (Hallowell et al, 2004; Miller et al, 2010). Campfield-Bonadies et al recently reported the results of a questionnaire based study of BRCA carriers who had undergone PSO regarding their post-operative symptoms, their recollection of pre-operative counselling, and what information they would have found helpful to have prior to surgery (Campfield-Bonadies et al, 2011). It was found that most patients were counselled preoperatively regarding the impact of PSO on ovarian and breast cancer risk, the pros and cons of surgical approaches and the impact of surgery on menopause, however the most common surgical symptoms were vaginal dryness, changes in libido and sleep disturbances and the majority of women would have found it helpful to have more information regarding the impact of PSO on their sex life, the availability of sex counselling and the risk of coronary heart disease, which were not commonly discussed during pre-operative counselling. Despite this, the overall satisfaction with PSO remains high in this cohort of patients (Miller et al, 2010)

## **6. Alternatives to surgery – Surveillance & chemoprevention**

Not all women who are diagnosed with a BRCA1/2 mutation will opt for PSO. Younger women who have not completed childbearing and wish to maintain fertility may seek alternative strategies to minimise risk or expedite diagnosis of a potential ovarian or breast cancer to improve survival.

The alternative options to risk reducing surgery for these women are: surveillance or chemoprevention.

## **6.1 Surveillance**

354 Hysterectomy

al, 2005; Olivier et al, 2006), the uptake of PSO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is variable

Patients considering PSO are faced with complex information regarding cancer risk and the risk/benefit profile of prophylactic surgery including factors such as surgical risk, hormonal deprivation and residual cancer risk. It is important that patients are supported in processing this information in order to help them make the best individual decision. Numerous variables have been identified as factors in this decision making process. Demographically older women, women with children and married women are more likely to opt for PSO (Madalinska et al, 2007; Miller et al, 2010), an association which is not unsurprising as this cohort of women may have completed their childbearing and may not have to deal with the sudden severe menopausal symptoms that are associated with surgical menopause in younger women. Interestingly, a lower level of education is also associated with an increased likelihood to opt for PSO. Proposed explanations for this are that such patients may be more inclined to follow a gynaecologists recommendation for surgery without seeking alternative options, or that they may prefer a more definitive solution (surgery) to regain a sense of control (Hallowell et al, 2004; Madalinska et al, 2007; Miller et al, 2010). Clinical predictors of PSO include a family history of ovarian cancer and a personal history of breast cancer (Miller et al, 2010). The most consistent psychosocial predictor of PSO uptake is the patients perception of their own health and the risk of ovarian cancer; patients who perceive their own health as poor, patients who overestimate their ovarian cancer risk and those who view ovarian cancer as an incurable disease are more likely to opt for PSO as a risk reducing strategy (Miller et al, 2010). Importantly, a physician/gynaecologists recommendation is a powerful determinant of PSO uptake (Madalinska et al, 2007) and it has been reported that failure to discuss this option with the patient may be perceived as a recommendation against this strategy (Madalinska et al, 2007; Tiller et al, 2002). Ideally, all patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation should be offered comprehensive counselling regarding the risks of breast and ovarian cancer and the

surveillance and risk-reducing strategies which may be undertaken.

In the course of such counselling, it is also important that the side-effects and potential outcomes of risk reducing surgery be discussed; surgical risk, residual cancer risk and the effects of hormonal deprivation should all be clearly explained to every patient considering risk reducing surgery. It is crucial to consider the impact of this surgery on premenopausal women in particular; the effect of menopausal symptoms, cognitive changes, loss of fertility, osteoporosis, heart disease, vasomotor symptoms, urogenital symptoms and the effect on sexuality and body image are all important factors that the patient should be aware of prior to surgery (Taylor, 2001). Qualitiative studies indicate that post surgery, the majority of women are satisfied with their decision to undergo PSO (Miller et al, 2010). There are a number of positive quality of life changes reported following PSO including a reduced perception of ovarian cancer risk, reduced anxiety levels and an increased sense of control over ones' health (Elit et al, 2001; Miller et al, 2010; Robson et al, 2003; Tiller et al, 2002). The majority of patients do report side effects related to hormonal deprivation, including hot flushes, vaginal dryness, decreased sexual interest and decreased sexual pleasure. These symptoms are most common in younger women (Miller et al, 2010; Robson et al, 2003). There is conflicting evidence regarding the level of patients satisfaction with pre-operative counselling with some women reporting that they were fully informed and others feeling that they could have been provided with more information, particularly regarding the

across published datasets.

#### **Breast cancer surveillance**

The goal of surveillance is early detection of cancer. In the case of breast cancer, this involves:


The sensitivity of mammography to detect malignancy in women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer is approximately 33%, MRI increases this to approximately 80%. Surveillance with alternating mammography and MRI six monthly has a sensitivity of 95% for the detection of breast cancer (Warner et al, 2001 & 2004).

#### **Ovarian cancer surveillance**

Screening for the early detection of ovarian cancer involves:


The advantages of surveillance are the fact that it is non-invasive, has no effect on fertility or childbearing, and leaves the other options for risk reduction available to the patient should

The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

preventive agents in this cohort of patients.

them including surveillance and risk reducing strategies.

and prognostic factors. *Gynecol Oncol,* 72:367–379.

**7. Conclusions** 

**8. References** 

7):162-5.

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 357

diphosphate)-ribose polymerase inhibitors, in BRCA mutation carriers with advanced breast and ovarian cancers (Audeh et al, 2010; Tutt et al, 2010), and BRCA1/2 mutation status is the best predictor of clinical response to PARP inhibitor treatment in patients with breast or ovarian cancer, highlighting the potential for these agents as therapeutic and future

Prophylactic oophorectomy is proven to be an effective risk-reducing strategy in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. In women diagnosed with a BRCA1/2 mutation the decision of whether to undergo risk reducing surgery is a complex one. Adequate consideration must be given to the risks and benefits of surgery, particularly in relation to timing of surgery, fertility, reduction in cancer risk, the need for hysterectomy and the symptoms of early menopause. Patients should be adequately counseled by regarding the options available to

Agalliu I*,* Gern R*,* Leanza S, et al. (2009) Associations of high-grade prostate cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder mutations*. Clin Cancer Res,* 15*:* 1112*-*1120*.* Aiyar SE*,* Blair AL*,* Hopkinson DA*,* et al. (2007) Regulation of clustered gene expression by cofactor of BRCA1 (COBRA1) in breast cancer cells*. Oncogene*, 26*:* 2543*–*2553 Alvarado-Cabrero I, Young RH, Vamvakas EC & Scully RE (1999). Carcinoma ofthe

Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. (2003). Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer

Bane AL, Beck JC, Bleiweiss I, et al (2007). BRCA2 mutation-associated breast cancers exhibit

Beatson GT (1896). On the treatment of inoperable cases of carcinoma of the mamma.

Beral V; Million Women Study Collaborators (2003). Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. *Lancet*, 362:419–427. Billar JA, Dueck AC, Stucky CC, et al (2010) Triple-negative breast cancers: unique clinicalpresentations and outcomes. *Ann Surg Oncol*, 17: 384-90,(Suppl 3) Biron-Shental T, Drucker L, Altaras M, Bernheim J & Fishman A (2006). High incidence of

BRCA1/2 mutations: a decision analysis*. J Clin Oncol*, 22:1045–1054. Audeh MW, Carmichael J, Penson RT, et al (2010) Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase

ovarian cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. *Lancet*, 24(376):245–251

tissue microarrays. *Am J Surg Pathol* 2007;31:121– 128.

fallopian tube: a clinicopathological study of 105 cases withobservations onstaging

associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. *Am J Hum Genet*, 72:1117–1130 Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Randall T, Rubin SC, Weber B (2004). Hormone replacement

therapy and life expectancy after prophylactic oophorectomy in women with

inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent

a distinguishing phenotype based on morphology and molecular profiles from

Suggestions for a new method of treatment with illustrative cases. *Lancet*, II(104-

BRCA1-2 germline mutations, previous breast cancer and familial cancer history in

she choose them at any time (eg. when finished childbearing). However there are disadvantages, the most obvious being that there is no reduction in cancer risk for these patients, and in the case of ovarian cancer, there is no evidence that the recommended surveillance strategies even reduce cancer-related mortality. Furthermore, there is an inherent level of anxiety associated with surveillance and both breast MRI and pelvic USS can yield false positives which increase this anxiety (Spiegel et al, 2011). It has been recommended that women opting for surveillance should be provided with professional psychosocial support when necessary (Warner, 2011).

#### **6.2 Chemoprevention**

The development of effective prevention strategies for breast and ovarian cancers is predominantly based on hormonal responsiveness. As discussed above, selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMS) have emerged as the first class of therapeutic agents in breast cancer chemoprevention trials (Fisher et al, 1998; Vogel et al, 2010). However, their efficacy in reducing breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unclear, and questionable in BRCA1 carriers in whom breast cancers are predominantly ER negative. The potential of the aromatase inhibitor exemestane as a chemopreventive agent has been evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in 4560 women at high risk of breast cancer (Goss et al, 2011). There was a with a 65% relative reduction in the annual incidence of invasive breast cancer in the exemestane group indicating that this agent may have a role to play in breast cancer chemoprevention. There is no data to date regarding the protective effect of aromatase inhibitors in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, but again it is doubtful that there will be a significant benefit in BRCA1 patients at risk of developing ER negative breast cancers. In the event that SERMs or aromatase inhibitors are deemed effective as chemoprevention for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers their benefit must be weighed against the side effect profiles including an increased risk of endometrial cancer with tamoxifen and the potential for thromboembolic events.

The oral contraceptive pill (OCP) has been shown to be effective in reducing epithelial ovarian cancer risk by 40-50% (McLaughlin et al, 2007; Narod et al, 2001). This strategy is well tolerated and inexpensive however OCP use also increases the risk of thromboembolic events and is associated with a slightly increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers if used for more than 5 years (Milne et al, 2005).

Translational research in breast cancer is largely focused on the development of targeted therapy. In addition to targeting the oestrogen pathway, researchers are continually investigating novel approaches to preventive therapy for breast cancer. Agents which have shown promise in breast cancer risk reduction include: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) (Harris et al, 2003), bisphosphonates (Chlebowski et al, 2010; Rennert et al, 2010) and metformin (Bodmer et al, 2010; Bosco et al, 2011). The data to date however is all observational and prospective trials are underway to confirm a protective effect before these agents can be considered or recommended for clinical use (Cuzick et al, 2011). In the context of BRCA mutation carriers, the investigation of novel strategies to target ER negative breast cancers is most likely to yield a potentially effective agent. Perhaps the most promising agents under investigation at present are the poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors which induce synthetic lethality in homozygous BRCA-deficient cells. Recent reports of phase II trials have shown efficacy and tolerability for PARPs, or poly ADP (adenosine diphosphate)-ribose polymerase inhibitors, in BRCA mutation carriers with advanced breast and ovarian cancers (Audeh et al, 2010; Tutt et al, 2010), and BRCA1/2 mutation status is the best predictor of clinical response to PARP inhibitor treatment in patients with breast or ovarian cancer, highlighting the potential for these agents as therapeutic and future preventive agents in this cohort of patients.

## **7. Conclusions**

356 Hysterectomy

she choose them at any time (eg. when finished childbearing). However there are disadvantages, the most obvious being that there is no reduction in cancer risk for these patients, and in the case of ovarian cancer, there is no evidence that the recommended surveillance strategies even reduce cancer-related mortality. Furthermore, there is an inherent level of anxiety associated with surveillance and both breast MRI and pelvic USS can yield false positives which increase this anxiety (Spiegel et al, 2011). It has been recommended that women opting for surveillance should be provided with professional

The development of effective prevention strategies for breast and ovarian cancers is predominantly based on hormonal responsiveness. As discussed above, selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMS) have emerged as the first class of therapeutic agents in breast cancer chemoprevention trials (Fisher et al, 1998; Vogel et al, 2010). However, their efficacy in reducing breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unclear, and questionable in BRCA1 carriers in whom breast cancers are predominantly ER negative. The potential of the aromatase inhibitor exemestane as a chemopreventive agent has been evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in 4560 women at high risk of breast cancer (Goss et al, 2011). There was a with a 65% relative reduction in the annual incidence of invasive breast cancer in the exemestane group indicating that this agent may have a role to play in breast cancer chemoprevention. There is no data to date regarding the protective effect of aromatase inhibitors in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, but again it is doubtful that there will be a significant benefit in BRCA1 patients at risk of developing ER negative breast cancers. In the event that SERMs or aromatase inhibitors are deemed effective as chemoprevention for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers their benefit must be weighed against the side effect profiles including an increased risk of endometrial cancer with tamoxifen and the

The oral contraceptive pill (OCP) has been shown to be effective in reducing epithelial ovarian cancer risk by 40-50% (McLaughlin et al, 2007; Narod et al, 2001). This strategy is well tolerated and inexpensive however OCP use also increases the risk of thromboembolic events and is associated with a slightly increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA mutation

Translational research in breast cancer is largely focused on the development of targeted therapy. In addition to targeting the oestrogen pathway, researchers are continually investigating novel approaches to preventive therapy for breast cancer. Agents which have shown promise in breast cancer risk reduction include: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) (Harris et al, 2003), bisphosphonates (Chlebowski et al, 2010; Rennert et al, 2010) and metformin (Bodmer et al, 2010; Bosco et al, 2011). The data to date however is all observational and prospective trials are underway to confirm a protective effect before these agents can be considered or recommended for clinical use (Cuzick et al, 2011). In the context of BRCA mutation carriers, the investigation of novel strategies to target ER negative breast cancers is most likely to yield a potentially effective agent. Perhaps the most promising agents under investigation at present are the poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors which induce synthetic lethality in homozygous BRCA-deficient cells. Recent reports of phase II trials have shown efficacy and tolerability for PARPs, or poly ADP (adenosine

psychosocial support when necessary (Warner, 2011).

**6.2 Chemoprevention** 

potential for thromboembolic events.

carriers if used for more than 5 years (Milne et al, 2005).

Prophylactic oophorectomy is proven to be an effective risk-reducing strategy in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. In women diagnosed with a BRCA1/2 mutation the decision of whether to undergo risk reducing surgery is a complex one. Adequate consideration must be given to the risks and benefits of surgery, particularly in relation to timing of surgery, fertility, reduction in cancer risk, the need for hysterectomy and the symptoms of early menopause. Patients should be adequately counseled by regarding the options available to them including surveillance and risk reducing strategies.

## **8. References**


The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

*Oncol,* 23(30):7491-7496

1:149–56.

78:329–335.

2074e10

41:315-329.

*Oncol* 18:vi93–vi98

families. *Am. J.Human Genetics,* 52*:* 678*–*701

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 359

Easton DF*,* Bishop DT*,* Ford D*,* Crockford GP (1993). The Breast Cancer LinkageConsortium*.* 

Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT (1995). Breast and ovarian cancer incidence inBRCA1-

Eisen A, Weber BL (2001). Prophylactic mastectomy for women withBRCA1 and BRCA2

Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, et al (2005). Breast cancer risk following bilateraloophorectomy

Elit L, Esplen MJ, Butler K, Narod S (2001). Quality of life and psychosexualadjustment after

Eltabbakh G, Piver M, Hempling R et al (1999) Laparoscopic management ofwomen with a

Eltabbakh G.H, Shamonki M.I, Moody J.M. & Garafano L.L (2000). Hysterectomyfor obese

Escobar P.F, Fader A.N, Paraiso M.F, Kaouk J.H & Falcone T.(2009) Roboticassisted

Escobar P.F, Bedaiwy M.A, Fader A.N & Falcone T (2010). Laparoendoscopicsingle-site

Escobar P.F, Starks D.C, Fader A.N, Barber M & Rojas-Espalliat L (2010). .Singleport risk-

Fader A.N, Escobar P.F.(2009). Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) ingynecologic oncology: technique and initial report, *Gynecol. Oncol.* 114 (2):157–161 Feinleib M. Breast cancer and artificial menopause: a cohort study(1968). *J Natl CancerInst*,

Ferla R, Calò V, Cascio S, et al. (2007) Founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2genes. *Ann* 

Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al (2006). Hereditary Ovarian Cancer ClinicalStudy Group.

cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.*JAMA*, 296:185–192. Fisher B, Costatino JP, Redman CK, et al (1994). Endometrial cancer in tamoxifentreated

Fisher B, Constantino JP, Lawrence-Wickerman D, et al (1998). Tamoxifen forprevention of

Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, et al. (2003). Germline BRCA1mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. *J Natl CancerInst,* 95:1482–1485. Foulkes WD (2010)*.* Traffic control for BRCA1*. N Engl J Med,* 362*:* 755*–*756 Goss PE, Ingle JN,

Salpingooophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopiantube, and peritoneal

patients:Findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast andBowel Project

breast cancer: report of the National Surgical AdjuvantBreast and Bowel Project P-1

Alés-Martínez JE, et al (2011). NCIC CTG MAP.3 Study Investigators. Exemestane

outcomes and learning curve analysis. *GynecolOncol.*, 119(1):43-7.

mutations – facts and controversy. *N Engl J Med*345:207-208, 2001.

family history of ovarian cancer. *J Surg Oncol* 72:9–13.

*Minim. Invasive Gynecol.* 16 (5): 589–591

(NSABP) B-14*. J Natl Cancer Inst* 86:527-537. .

Study. *J Natl Cancer Inst*, 90:1371–88.

Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovariancancers: Results from 214

mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. *Am J HumGenet*, 56:265–271.

in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an internationalcase-control study. *J Clin* 

prophylactic oophorectomy for a family history ofovarian cancer. *Fam Cancer,*

women with endometrial cancer: laparoscopy or laparotomy?,*Gynecol. Oncol.,* 

laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: initial reportand technique, *J.* 

(LESS) surgery in patients with benign adnexal disease, *FertilSteril.,* 93(6):2074e7-

reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with and withouthysterectomy: surgical

Jewish patients with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. *Eur J Surg Oncol*, 32:1097– 1100.


Bodmer M, Meier C, Krahenbuhl S, Jick SS & Meier CR (2010)Long-term metformin use is associated with decreased risk of breast cancer, *Diabetes Care***,** 33: 1304–1308. Bosco JL, Antonsen S, Sørensen HT, Pedersen L & Lash TL (2011). Metformin and incident

Brekelmans CT*,* Tilanus-Linthorst MM*,* Seynaeve C*,* et al (2007). Tumour characteristics,

Brinton LA, Schairer C, Hoover RN, & Fraumeni JF Jr. (1988) Menstrual factors andrisk of

The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium (1999). Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutationcarriers*. J* 

Campfield-Bonadies D, Moyer A & Matloff ET (2011). What I wish I'd known before

Canes D, Desai M.M, Aron M, et al (2008), Transumbilical single-port surgery: evolution and

Casey M, Garcia-Padial J, Hakert D et al (1998) Changing trends in surgical approaches to

Chiaffarino, F, Parazzini, F, Bosetti, C et al. (2007). Risk factors for ovarian cancer histotypes.

Chlebowski RT, Chen Z, Cauley JA et al. (2010) Oral bisphosphonate use and breast cancer

Cho Y.H, Kim D.Y, Kim J.H, Kim Y.M, Kim Y.T & Nam J.H.(2007) Laparoscopic

Cuzick J, Powles T, Veronesi U, et al (2003). Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer

Cuzick J, DeCensi A, Arun B, et al. (2011). Preventive therapy for breast cancer: aconsensus

Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al (2007). Triple-negative breast cancer: clinicalfeatures

Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Neuhausen SL, et al (2006). Mortality after bilateralsalpingo

Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al. (2010). Association of risk-reducingsurgery in

oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: aprospective cohort study.

BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk andmortality. *JAMA*,

incidence in postmenopausal women, *J Clin Oncol* 28: 3582-3590

Crossen H S (1942). The menace of "silent" ovarian carcinoma. *JAMA* 1191485–1489

Denmark. *Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev* 20: 101–111. Boyd S (1897) On oophorectomy in the treatment of cancer. *BMJ*, 2:890–6. Boyd S (1900) On oophorectomy in cancer of the breast. *BMJ,* 2:1161–7.

1100.

*Cancer,* 43*:* 867*–*876

*Cancer*, 10(1):79-85

*Eur JCancer,* 43:1208–1213

*Gynecol. Oncol.* 106:585–590

*LancetOncol*, 7:223–229.

304(9):967-75.

prevention trials. *Lancet* 361:296-300

statement. *Lancet Oncol.,* 12(5):496-503

breast cancer. *Cancer Invest*., 6:245-254.

current status. *Eur. Urol.* 54 (5): 1020–1029

hysterectomies in clinicpractice. *J Gynecol Surg* 14:15–24

and patterns of recurrence. *Clin Cancer Res,* 13: 4429-34.

*Natl Cancer Inst,* 91*:* 1310*–*1316

Jewish patients with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. *Eur J Surg Oncol*, 32:1097–

breastcancer among diabetic women: a population-based case control study in

survival and prognostic factors of hereditary breast cancer from BRCA2-, BRCA1 and non-BRCA1/2 families as compared to sporadic breast cancer cases*. Eur J* 

surgery: BRCA carriers' perspectives after bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy. *Fam* 

hysterectomy: an analysis of the use of laparoscopic assisted vaginal

management of early uterine cancer: 10-year experience in Asan Medical Center,


The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

*Biol* 47*:*59*-65*

356:1876-1881

Version 1.2010.2010.

*Br J Cancer*, 90: 1492–1497.

August 21, 2010.

cancer. *JAMA,* 222: 1631–1635

receptor alpha*. Mol Endocrinol,* 24*:* 76*–*90

mutation carriers. *JClin Oncol.,* 25(3):301-7

*Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev*., 14(2):350-356.

mutations. *N Engl J Med,* 345:1706–1707.

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 361

Lynch HT, Krush AJ, Lemon HM, et al. (1972). Tumor variation in families withbreast

Ma Y*,* Fan S*,* Hu C*,* et al (2010). BRCA1 regulates acetylation and ubiquitination ofestrogen

Madalinska JB, van Beurden M, Bleiker EM, et al (2007). Predictors of prophylacticbilateral

Malone KE, Daling JR, Doody DR, et al. (2006) Prevalence and predictors of BRCA1and

McLaughlin JR, Risch HA, Lubinski J, et al (2007). Hereditary Ovarian CancerClinical Study

Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, et al (2004). Contralateral breast cancer inBRCA1 and

Meijer WJ & van Lindert AC (1992). Prophylactic oophorectomy. *Eur J ObstetGynecol Reprod* 

Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al (1994). A strong candidate for thebreast and

Miller SM, Roussi P, Daly MB & Scarpato J (2010). New strategies in ovariancancer: uptake

Milne RL, Knight JA, John EM, et al (2005). Oral contraceptive use and risk ofearly-onset

Mitra A*,* Fisher C*,* Foster CS, et al (2008). Prostate cancer in male BRCA1 andBRCA2 mutation carriers has a more aggressive phenotype*. Br J Cancer,* 98*:*502*–*507 Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghardirian P, et al (2000). Tamoxifen and risk of contralateralbreast

Narod SA, Sun P, & Risch HA (2001). Ovarian cancer, oral contraceptives, andBRCA

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN & Clinical Resources Web site.NCCN

http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician\_gls/f\_guidelines.asp. Accessed

Neuhausen SL, Ozcelik H, Southey MC, et al. (2009). BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutationcarriers in

Olivier RI, van Beurden M, Lubsen MA, et al (2004). Clinical outcome ofprophylactic

Breast Cancer Family Registry. *Breast Cancer ResTreat*, 116:379–386

and experience of women at high risk of ovarian cancerwho are considering risk-

breast cancer in carriers and noncarriers of *BRCA1* and *BRCA2*mutations. *Cancer* 

cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study.*Lancet,* 

clinicalpractice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines).Genetic/familial highrisk assessment: breast and ovarian. Hereditarybreast and/or ovarian cancer.

the Breast Cancer Family Registry: an open resource forcollaborative research.

oophorectomy in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers andevents during follow-up.

ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. *Science,* 266(5182):6671.

reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.*Clin CancerRes.*, 16(21):5094-106.

American women, ages 35 to 64 years. *Cancer Res* 66:82978308

mutations: a case control study. *Lancet Oncol*.,8(1):26-34.

BRCA2 mutation carriers. *J Clin Oncol* 22:2328- 2335

salpingo-oophorectomy compared with gynecologic screening usein BRCA1/2

BRCA2 mutations in a population-based study of breast cancer inwhite and black

Group. Reproductive risk factors for ovarian cancer incarriers of *BRCA1* or *BRCA2* 

for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women.*N Engl J Med,* 23;364(25):2381-91


Grady D, Gebretsadik T, Kerlikowske K et al (1995) Hormone replacement therapy and

Hallowell N, Mackay J, Richards M, Gore M & Jacobs I (2004). High-risk premenopausal

Harris RE, Chlebowski RT, Jackson RD, et al (2003). Women's Health Initiative.Breast

Hidlebaugh DA, Vulgaropulos S & Orr R (1996) Trends in oophorectomy bylaparoscopic

Hornreich G, Beller U, Lavie O, et al (1999). Is uterine serous papillary carcinoma aBRCA1-

Huen MS*,* Sy SM*,* & Chen J (2010). BRCA1 and its toolbox for the maintenance ofgenome

Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al (2002). Risk reducing salpingooophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. *N Engl J Med*,346:1609– 1615. Kauff ND, Domchek SM, Friebel TM, et al (2008). Risk-reducing salpingooophorectomy for

King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, et al (2001). Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidenceamong

King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB (2003). New York Breast Cancer Study Group.Breast and

Klaren HM, van't Veer LJ, van Leeuwen FE & Rookus MA (2003). Potential for biasin studies

Kramer JL, Velazquez IA, Chen BE, et al (2005). Prophylactic oophorectomyreduces breast

Kurian AW, Balise RR, McGuire V, & Whittemore AS (2005). Histologic types ofepithelial ovarian cancer: have they different risk factors? *GynecologicOncology, 96*: 520–530 Leetanaporn R & Tintara H (1996) A comparative study of outcome of laparoscopicsalpingooophorectomy versus open salpingo-oophorectomy. *J ObstetGynaecol Res* 22:79–83 Levine DA, Argenta PA, Yee CJ, et al (2003). Fallopian tube and primary

Liber AM (1950). Ovarian cancer in a mother and five daughters. *Arch Pathol.,*49:280–290 Liebens FP*,* Carly B*,* Pastijn A*,* et al.(2007) Management of BRCA1/2 associatedbreast

23;364(25):2381-91

study. *Genet Test*, 8:148–56.

*JAMA*, 286:2251-225

*Inst.,* 95(13):941–947

*Cancer* , 43*:* 238*–*257*.* 

carriers. *J Clin Oncol*.,23:8629–8635.

302:643–646

tochromosome 17q21. *Science*, 250*:* 1684*–*9

integrity*. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol* , 11*:* 138*–*148

Women's Health Initiative. *Cancer Res*, 63(18):6096-101

versus open techniques. *J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc* 3:S17S18.

multi-center, prospective study. *J Clin Oncol*,26:1331–1337.

for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women.*N Engl J Med,*

endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis. *Obstet Gynecol* 85:304–313. Hall JM*,* Lee MK*,* Morrow J et al (1990). Linkage analysis of early onset familial breast cancer

women's experiences of undergoing prophylacticoophorectomy: a descriptive

Cancer and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: prospectiveresults from the

related disease? Case report and review of the literature. *GynecolOncol*, 75:300–304.

the prevention of BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated breastand gynaecologic cancer: a

women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: NationalSurgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) breast cancerprevention trial.

ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 andBRCA2*. Science*,

on efficacy of prophylactic surgery for BRCA1 and BRCA2mutation. *J Natl Cancer* 

cancer penetrance during prospective, longterm follow-upof BRCA1 mutation

peritonealcarcinomas associated with BRCA mutations. *J Clin Oncol,* 21: 4222–4227.

cancer: Asystematic qualitative review of the state of knowledge in2006*. Eur J* 


 http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician\_gls/f\_guidelines.asp. Accessed August 21, 2010.


The Role of Prophylactic Oophorectomy in the

5588-5596

336(20):1401–1408

*Gynecol Oncol,* 86:212-219,

Management of Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer Syndrome 363

Stirling D, Evans DG, Pichert G, et al (2005). Screening for familial ovarian cancer:Failure of

Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al (1997). The risk of cancer associatedwith specific

Tai YC*,* Domchek S*,* Parmigiani G*,* et al (2007)*.* Breast cancer risk among maleBRCA1 and

Taylor M (2001) Psychological consequences of surgical menopause. *J Reprod Med*,46:317–324 Thomson A (1902). Analysis of cases in which oophorectomy was performed forinoperable

Tiller K, Meiser B, Butow P, et al (2002). Psychological impact of prophylacticoophorectomy

Tobacman JK, Greene MH, Tucker MA, Costa J, Kase R & Fraumeni JF Jr

Tutt A, Robson M, Garber JE, et al (2010). Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymeraseinhibitor

Visvanathan K, Chlebowski RT, Hurley P et al (2009). American Society of ClinicalOncology

Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al (2010). National Surgical AdjuvantBreast and

Warner E, Foulkes W, Goodwin P, et al (1999) Prevalence and penetrance ofBRCA1 and

Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al (2001). Comparison of breast magneticresonance

Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al (2004). Surveillance of *BRCA1* and *BRCA2*mutation

Warner E (2011). Impact of MRI surveillance and breast cancer detection in youngwomen

Whittemore AS, Gong G, Itnyre J (1997) Prevalence and contribution of BRCA1mutations in

Whittemore AS, Gong G, John EM, et al. (2004) Prevalence of BRCA1 mutationcarriers among U.S. non-Hispanic Whites. *Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev*13:2078–2083

BRCA2 mutation carriers. *J Natl Cancer Inst,* 99*:* 1811*–*1814*.*

in ovarian-cancer-prone families. *Lancet*, 2:795-797.

a proof-of-concept trial. *Lancet,* 24(376):235–244.

hereditary breastcancer. *J Clin Oncol*, 19(15):35243531.

with BRCA mutations. *Ann Oncol,* 22 Suppl 1:i44-9

control studies ofovarian cancer. *Am J Hum Genet*60:496–504

Reduction. *J Clin Oncol*, 27(19); 3235-3258

breast examination.*JAMA,* 292:1317–1325

*Cancer Prev Res (Phila)*,3(6):696-706.

*J Natl Canc Inst,*91(14):1241–1247.

carcinoma of the breast. *BMJ*, 2:1538–41.

current protocols to detect ovarian cancer at an early stageaccording to the International Federation of Gynecology and ObstetricsSystem. *J Clin Oncol*, 23:

mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. *NEngl J Med*,

in women at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer: Aprospective study.

(1982).Intraabdominalabdominal carcinomatosis after prophylacticoophorectomy

olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations andadvanced breast cancer:

Clinical Practice Guideline Update on the Use of PharmacologicInterventions Including Tamoxifen, Raloxifene, and Aromatase Inhibitionfor Breast Cancer Risk

Bowel Project. Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breastand Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial:Preventing breast cancer.

BRCA2 gene mutations in unselected Ashkenazi Jewishwomen with breast cancer.

imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance ofwomen at high risk for

carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound,mammography, and clinical

breast cancer and ovarian cancer: results from three U.S.population-based case-


Olivier RI, Lubsen-Brandsma MA, Verhoef S, et al (2006). CA125 and

Osborne CK (1998) Tamoxifen in the treatment of breast cancer. *N Engl J Med*,339(22):1609-

Paley PJ, Swisher EM, Garcia RL, et al (2001). Occult cancer of the fallopian tube inBRCA-1

Rebbeck TR, Levin AM, Eisen A, et al (1999). Breast cancer risk after bilateralprophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers. *J Natl Cancer Inst* ,91:1475–1479 Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, et al (2002). Prevention and Observation ofSurgical

Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Wagner T, et al (2005). PROSE Study Group. Effect of shortterm

Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM (2009). Meta-analysis of Risk ReductionEstimates

Rennert G, Pinchev M, & Rennert HS (2010). Use of bisphosphonates and risk

Robson M, Hensley M, Barakat R, et al (2003). Quality of life in women at risk forovarian cancer who have undergone risk-reducing oophorectomy. *GynecolOncol*, 89:281–7. Robson M & Offit K (2007). Clinical practice: management of an inheritedpredisposition to

Rocca WA, Grossardt BR, de Andrade M, Malkasian GD & Melton LJ (2006).Survival

Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al (2002). Writing Group for theWomen's Health

Rutter JL, Wacholder S, Chetrit A et al (2003). Gynecologic surgeries and risk ofovarian

Schinzinger A (1889). Ueber Carcinoma Mammae. Verhandlungen der

Spiegel TN, Esplen MJ, Hill KA, Wong J, Causer PA & Warner E (2011). Psychological

population-based case-control study. *J Natl CancerInst*, 95:1072–1078. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. (2007). American Cancer Society Breast CancerAdvisory

patterns after oophorectomy in premenopausal women: apopulation-based cohort

Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogenplus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women : principal results fromthe Women's Health Initiative

cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi foundermutations: an Israeli

Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screeningwith MRI as an

DeutschenGesellschaft furChirurgie. 18th Kongress, Berlin, Apr 24–27, Berlin,

impact of recall on women with BRCA mutationundergoing MRI surveillance.

diagnosis ofadvanced ovarian cancer. *Gynecol Oncol*, 100:20-26

hysterectomy at surgical prophylaxis. *Gynecol Oncol*,80:176–180.

BRCA2 mutations.*N Engl J Med*, 346: 1616–1622.

Mutation Carriers. *J Natl Cancer Inst*., 101(2): 80–87.

ofpostmenopausal breast cancer, *J Clin Oncol*, 28: 3577–3581

Study Group. *J ClinOncol*, 23:7804–7810.

breastcancer. *N Engl J Med*, 357(2):154-162.

randomized controlled trial. *JAMA*,288:321–333.

adjunct to mammograph *CA Cancer J Clin*, 57(2):75-89.

Germany: Hirschwald; 1889:28[abstract]

Breast. 2011 May 23[Epub ahead of print]

study. *Lancet Oncol,* 7(10):821–828.

18.

transvaginalultrasound monitoring in high-risk women cannot prevent the

germline mutation carriers at prophylactic oophorectomy: a casefor recommending

End Points Study Group. Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriersof BRCA1 or

hormonereplacement therapy on breast cancer risk reduction afterbilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutationcarriers: the PROSE

Associated With Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy in*BRCA1* or *BRCA2*


**1. Introduction** 

conclusions.

hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

numbers of the operations performed annually.

(Stockman, as cited in O'Hara et al., 1995; Thornton et al., 1997)

**24**

*United Kingdom* 

**Psychological Aspects of**

Amitabha Majumdar and Sepeedeh Saleh

*East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust,* 

**Hysterectomy & Postoperative Care** 

Hysterectomy is one of the commonest gynaecological procedures undertaken in the UK and in the USA. (Gupta & Manyonda, 2011) It is carried out both for benign indications (namely abnormal uterine bleeding and pelvic pain) and for malignancies of the female genital tract. In some cases there are multiple indications for hysterectomy, for example, menorrhagia and dysmenorrhoea (Williams & Clark, 2000) and chronic pelvic pain can accompany a variety of other gynaecological diagnoses. Bilateral salpingo-oophrectomy is often carried out concurrently and this may be followed by postoperative commencement of

Subgroups of patients undergoing hysterectomy have the procedure undertaken via the vaginal route, which may also be laparoscopically-assisted. These procedures are less invasive than abdominal hysterectomies and may therefore have better recovery profiles. (Nieboer et al., 2009) Hysterectomies have been extensively studied because of the large

As with any major surgical procedure the postoperative phase of a hysterectomy is complex and multimodal. Measures of postoperative recovery tend to focus on physical aspects, often overlooking the equally important psychological elements of recovery. (Gath et al., 1982) The impact of hysterectomy on sexual function is a major cause of preoperative anxiety which unfortunately is seldom articulated by patients or explored routinely by clinicians. Reports regarding the impact of hysterectomy on sexual function draw conflicting

In exploring the psychological aspects of post-hysterectomy recovery we must first take into account preoperative factors. Levels of psychiatric morbidity in hysterectomy patients preoperatively have been found to be high in comparison to women in the general population. (Khastgir & Studd, 1998) This could be explained by a variety of factors including depression in response to the ongoing physical symptoms for which hysterectomy is planned and anxiety regarding the upcoming surgery. Other hypotheses include that of physical symptoms occurring as psychophysiological correlates to psychological disorders and the theory that a proportion of women are listed for major surgery (in this case hysterectomy) having repeatedly presented with physical complaints of nonorganic origin.

