Search

Aim: Reliably diagnosing or safely excluding serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC), a precursor lesion of tubo‐ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), is crucial for individual patient care, for better understanding the oncogenesis of HGSC, and for safely investigating novel strategies to prevent tubo‐ovarian carcinoma. To optimize STIC diagnosis and increase its reproducibility, we set up a three‐round Delphi study. Methods and results: In round 1, an international expert panel of 34 gynecologic pathologists, from 11 countries, was assembled to provide input regarding STIC diagnosis, which was used to develop a set of statements. In round 2, the panel rated their level of agreement with those statements on a 9‐point Likert scale. In round 3, statements without previous consensus were rated again by the panel while anonymously disclosing the responses of the other panel members. Finally, each expert was asked to approve or disapprove the complete set of consensus statements. The panel indicated their level of agreement with 64 statements. A total of 27 statements (42%) reached consensus after three rounds. These statements reflect the entire diagnostic work‐up for pathologists, regarding processing and macroscopy (three statements); microscopy (eight statements); immunohistochemistry (nine statements); interpretation and reporting (four statements); and miscellaneous (three statements). The final set of consensus statements was approved by 85%. Conclusion: This study provides an overview of current clinical practice regarding STIC diagnosis amongst expert gynecopathologists. The experts' consensus statements form the basis for a set of recommendations, which may help towards more consistent STIC diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing numbers of BReast CAncer (BRCA) 1 or 2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers, who have an inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer, are being identified. Among these women, data regarding the effects of contraception on cancer risks are unclear and various guidelines provide various recommendations.Objective and Rationale: We aim to optimize counselling regarding contraception for BRCA1/2-PV carriers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We investigated the risk ratio for developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2-PV carriers who have used any form of contraception versus non-users. Second, we analysed breast and ovarian cancer risk among BRCA1/2-PV carriers as influenced by the duration of contraceptive use and by the time since last use. In addition, we provide an overview of all relevant international guidelines regarding contraceptive use for BRCA1/2-PV carriers.Search Methods: A systematic search in the Medline database and Cochrane library identified studies describing breast and/or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2-PV carriers as modified by contraception until June 2021. The search included medical subject headings, keywords and synonyms related to BRCA and contraceptives (any kind). PRISMA guidance was followed. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessments were performed. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled effects for breast and ovarian cancer risk separately. Subgroup analyses were conducted for BRCA1 versus BRCA2 and for the various contraceptive methods.Outcomes: Results of the breast cancer risk with oral contraceptive pill (OCP) analysis depended on the outcome measure. Meta-analyses of seven studies with 7525 women revealed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.55 (95% CI: 1.36-1.76) and of four studies including 9106 women resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.90-1.25), heterogeneity (I2) 0% and 52%, respectively. Breast cancer risk was still increased in ever-users compared with never-users >10 years after last OCP use. In contrast, ovarian cancer risk was decreased among OCP users: HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.74) based on two studies including 10 981 women (I2: 0%), and OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38-0.63) based on eight studies including 10 390 women (I2: 64%). The protective effect vanished after cessation of use. Tubal ligation also protects against ovarian cancer: one study including 3319 women (I2: 0%): HR: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.26-0.74) and three studies with 7691 women (I2: 44%): OR: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.53-1.03). Data regarding other contraceptives were unavailable. No differences were observed between BRCA1 and BRCA2-PV carriers. The quality of evidence was either low or very low.Wider Implications: The OCP potentially increases breast cancer risk, while ovarian cancer risk decreases with either the OCP and tubal ligation in BRCA1/2-PV carriers. Counselling of BRCA1/2-PV carriers should be personalized; the genetic and non-genetic factors (like prior risk-reducing surgeries, prior breast cancer and age) and patients' preferences (reversibility, ease of use, reliability and effect on menstrual cycle) should be balanced. To further optimize counselling for high-risk women, future research should focus on other (commonly used) contraceptive methods and cancer risks in this specific population, and on the potential impact of changing formulations over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare menopause-related quality of life (QoL) after risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS) versus risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) until 3 years of post-surgery., Design: A prospective study (TUBA study) with treatment allocation based on patients' preference. Data were collected pre-surgery and at 3 months, 1 and 3 years of post-surgery., Setting: Multicentre prospective preference trial in thirteen hospitals in the Netherlands., Population: BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers aged 25-40 (BRCA1) or 25-45 (BRCA2), who were premenopausal, without a future child wish and without current (treatment for) malignancy., Methods: Treatment allocation was based on patients' preference: either RRS from the age of 25 years with delayed oophorectomy at the maximum age of 45 (BRCA1) or 50 (BRCA2), or RRSO between the ages of 35-40 (BRCA1) or 40-45 (BRCA2). After RRSO, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was recommended, if not contraindicated. Primarily, menopause-related QoL as measured with the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) was compared between the RRS and RRSO without HRT group. Secondarily, GSC-scores of the RRS group were compared with the scores of the RRSO with HRT after surgery group. A higher GSC-score reflects more climacteric symptoms., Results: Until April 2023, 410 participants had undergone RRS and 160 RRSO. The BRCA1/BRCA2 proportions were 51.4%/48.6%. The mean age at surgery (SD) was 37.9 (3.5) years. Participants 3 years after RRSO without HRT had a 4.3 (95% CI 2.1-6.5; p < 0.001) point higher increase in GCS-score from baseline compared to those after RRS, while the difference was 7.9 (95% CI 5.9-9.8) and 8.5 (95% CI 6.5-10.5) points at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Among participants with HRT after surgery, the RRSO group had a 2.4 (95% CI 0.8-3.9; p = 0.002) point higher increase in GCS-score from baseline compared to the RRS group., Conclusions: In this multicentre preference trial, menopause-related QoL was better after RRS than after RRSO, even with HRT after RRSO. Differences between arms were most pronounced until one-year post-surgery., (© 2025 The Author(s). BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)