Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

For this assignment, you will review and reflect on the Prophylactic Hysterectomy article. This article can be applied to healthcare providers in the primary care and specialty settings.  Discussion of the article is based on the course objectives and weekly content, which emphasize the core learning objectives for an evidence-based primary care curriculum. Throughout your Nurse Practitioner program, discussions are used to promote the development of clinical reasoning through the use of ongoing assessments and diagnostic skills, and to develop patient care plans that are grounded in the latest clinical guidelines and evidence-based practice. Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

  • Discuss any “take-away” thoughts from the article.
  • What are the ethical dilemmas to consider with prophylactic surgeries?
  • Discuss the screenings/interventions/options/education that you would provide to a patient that has a strong family history of ovarian cancer.
  • What if the patient has no health insurance?
  • What resources could you offer to assist the patient?


Do 2 pages

Provide References


Abstract. Risk-reducing surgery (RRS) is defined as a prophylactic approach with removal of organs at high risk of developing cancer, which is performed in cases without lesions or absence of clinically significant lesions. Hereditary gyneco- logical cancers for which RRS is performed include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome. For HBOC, RRS in the United States (US) is recommended for women with mutations in the breast cancer susceptibility (BRCA)1 and BRCA2 genes and bilateral salpingo-oopho- rectomy (BSO) is generally performed. This procedure may reduce the risk of breast, ovarian, Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer, although ovarian deficiency symptoms occur postoperatively. For Lynch syndrome, RRS in the US is considered for postmenopausal women or for women who do not desire to bear children and BSO and hysterectomy are usually performed. This approach may reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, although ovarian deficiency symptoms also occur. For RRS, there are several issues that must be addressed to reduce the risk of cancer development in patients with HBOC or Lynch syndrome. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review to discuss RRS with a focus on hereditary gynecological cancer.


1. Introduction 2. Indications for RRS 3. Techniques of RRS 4. Effects of RRS

5. Complications and surveillance following RRS 6. Current status of RRS worldwide 7. Conclusions

1. Introduction

Hereditary gynecological cancers include ovarian cancer associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC); endometrial and ovarian cancer associated with Lynch syndrome; endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; and ovarian cancer associ- ated with Cowden disease. HBOC is an autosomal dominant hereditary disease that may cause breast, ovarian, Fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer.

Mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility (BRCA)1 and BRCA2 genes have been identified in ~8‑13% of patients with ovarian cancer (1,2). By the age of 70 years, the estimated risks of developing ovarian cancer are 35‑60 and 10‑27% in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively (2). The mean ages at diagnosis of ovarian cancer are 54, 62 and 63 years for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers, respectively, indicating that BRCA1 mutation carriers are more likely to be affected by ovarian cancer at a younger age (3). Clinicopathologically, the majority of ovarian cancers that are BRCA1/2 mutation-positive are of serous histology and are poorly differentiated (grade 3) stage III-IV tumors, according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging criteria, as defined in 1988 (4,5). In BRCA1/2 mutation-positive and -negative cases, the rates of serous adenocarcinoma are 63‑86 and 57‑58%, those of poorly differentiated tumors 68‑87 and 48‑58% and those of stage III‑IV tumors 72‑88 and 62‑70%, respectively.

Lynch syndrome, also referred to as hereditary non-polyp- osis colorectal cancer, is an autosomal dominant hereditary disease that may lead to colorectal, endometrial, gastric and ovarian cancer. Lynch syndrome is caused by germline muta- tions in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, which include mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), MSH3, MSH6, postmeiotic segregation increased 1 (PMS1) and PMS2. High mutation rates of MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 have been

Risk-reducing surgery in hereditary gynecological cancer: Clinical applications in Lynch syndrome

and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (Review) MASATAKA ADACHI, KOUJI BANNO, MEGUMI YANOKURA, MIHO IIDA, KANAKO NAKAMURA,


Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo 160‑8582, Japan

Received April 10, 2014; Accepted October 15, 2014

DOI: 10.3892/mco.2014.460

Correspondence to: Dr Kouji Banno, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi Road, Shinjuku‑ku, Tokyo 160‑8582, Japan E-mail:

Key words: risk-reducing surgery, Lynch syndrome, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy


identified in Lynch syndrome (6), with 50% of women in fami- lies with Lynch syndrome carrying a MLH1 mutation, 39% a MSH2 mutation and 7% a MSH6 mutation. The majority of the cases of endometrial cancer associated with Lynch syndrome have germline mutations of MSH6 and MLH1 (7). However, Lynch syndrome may also occur without a pathogenic mutation in MMR genes (8) and may instead be due to an epimutation in the promoter region of MLH1 or MSH2, with different levels among family members and tissues (9). For patients with MMR gene mutations, the estimated risk of developing endo- metrial, colorectal and ovarian cancer at the age of 70 years is 42‑60, 30‑54 and 12%, respectively (10,11). Compared to sporadic endometrial cancer, the histological characteristics of endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome include a lower rate of endometrioid tumors (86.0 vs. 97.6%) that are more often found in FIGO stage I-II disease (88.0 vs. 73.8%) (12) and are more commonly surface epithelial stromal tumors (95.9 vs. 83.6%), including endometrioid (18.3 vs. 9.6%) and clear cell tumors (18.3 vs. 3.6%) (13).

Genetic tests may be used to determine whether an indi- vidual is at high risk of developing cancer; however, screening methods for ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome have not been established. Therefore, risk-reducing surgery (RRS) may be an important approach to such cases. RRS was originally defined as an operation performed in cases without lesions or absence of clinically significant lesions to remove organs at high risk of developing cancer, for the purpose of reducing the mortality risk from cancer or from the side effects of treatment. The benefits of RRS for gynecological cancers associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome or Cowden disease have not been investigated. In this review, we examined the conditions for performing RRS for HBOC and Lynch syndrome, the methods and outcomes of surgery, postoperative management and the current status of RRS for these diseases worldwide.

2. Indications for RRS

The indications for RRS in HBOC are summarized in the guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) (14). Due to the absence of a reliable method for early detection and the poor prognosis associated with advanced ovarian cancer, these guidelines recommend ‘risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) for women with known BRCA1/2 mutations, ideally aged 35-40 years and upon completion of child bearing or at an individualized age based on earliest age of ovarian cancer diag- nosed in the family’ (14). Since 95% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0‑16%] of women in hereditary breast cancer families, including patients with ovarian cancer, carry BRCA muta- tions (15), the majority of women in such families are eligible for RRS. King et al (16) observed that the risk of developing ovarian and breast cancer at the age of 40, 50 and 60 years was 3, 21 and 40%, respectively, in BRCA1 mutation carriers and 2, 2 and 6%, respectively, in BRCA2 mutation carriers; they also reported that the risk of developing breast cancer at these ages was 21, 39 and 58%, respectively, in BRCA1 mutation carriers and 17, 34 and 48%, respectively, in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Finch et al (17) reported that the prevalence of occult carcinoma was 1.5% for BRCA1 mutation carriers who underwent oophorectomy at <40 years of age and 3.8%

for women who underwent surgery between 40 and 49 years. This led to the recommendation that BRCA1 mutation carriers should undergo RRSO by the age of 35 years. Finch et al (17) also observed that the rate of diagnosis of ovarian cancer was 4.0% if a BRCA1 mutation carrier chose to delay RRSO until the age of 40 years and that this rate increased to 14.2% with a delay until the age of 50 years.

Regarding the indications for women without gene muta- tions in hereditary breast cancer families, the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium in 1998 collected data on 237 families, each with ≥4 cases of breast cancer diagnosed by the age of 60 years (15). A case of ovarian cancer was found to be associated with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2 in 90% of the families. These results indicated that a woman in a family with at least 1 case of ovarian cancer should be managed in a manner similar to women with BRCA1/2 mutations. In a study of 165 BRCA mutation-negative hereditary breast cancer families at the Memorial Sloan‑Kettering Cancer Center (18), the risk of breast cancer in women in these families was 3.13 (95% CI: 1.88‑4.89) compared to that in the general popula- tion. However, those families did not exhibit a significantly increased risk for ovarian cancer. This suggests that RRSO for the prevention of ovarian cancer may be unnecessary in patients with BRCA mutation-negative hereditary breast cancer.

The NCCN guidelines also include an indication for RRS in Lynch syndrome and state that ‘when postmeno- pausal or not desiring to bear children, total abdominal hysterectomy̸bilateral salpingo‑oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) should be considered’ (19). In patients with Lynch syndrome, Schmeler et al (20) found that the median age at diagnosis of endometrial and ovarian cancer was 46 and 42 years, respec- tively, with diagnosis at ≥35 years in 94 and 83% of the cases, respectively. These findings suggested that the more appro- priate indication for RRS is ‘a woman aged 35 years or older not desiring to bear children, or a postmenopausal woman with suspected Lynch syndrome from family history or known DNA mismatch repair gene mutation’ (21). Moreover, since endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome is mainly detected at an early stage (12), treatment initiated following early detection may be curative (22). Therefore, further studies are required to elucidate the appropriate indications for RRS (23). Of note, performing an RRSO in Japan requires approval from an Ethics Committee, as symptoms have not yet developed; in addition, the patient must have sufficient financial resources, as RRSO is not covered by public health insurance in Japan (24).

3. Techniques of RRS

RRS performed in HBOC is basically BSO. The benefits of laparoscopic RRSO are reduced invasiveness, a lower rate of postoperative complications and a shorter median hospital stay compared to laparotomy, although laparoscopy may be converted to laparotomy in case of a major intraoperative complication, such as adhesion or perforation (25). Over the last few years, laparoscopic single-port RRSO has been introduced and this procedure has the advantage of further decreased invasiveness compared to conventional laparos- copy (26). Occult cancers are detected at a frequency of 1‑4% in cases in which RRSO is performed; thus, both the ovaries and Fallopian tubes should be removed (27,28). In HBOC, the


risk for developing endometrial cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers is 2.6-fold higher compared to that in non-carriers (29) and the relative risk for endometrial cancer is 11.6 following tamoxifen treatment in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (30). Since the uterus is non-functional following BSO, a hysterectomy should be performed at the same time as BSO (31). However, with regard to prevention of malignant transformation, the incidence of gynecological malignancies was not found to differ significantly between women who did and those who did not undergo hysterectomy with BSO (2.8 vs. 0%) (32). Based on those results, the benefits and risk of simultaneous hysterec- tomy must be discussed with the patient prior to RRSO.

The NCCN guidelines state that the RRS performed in Lynch syndrome is TAH̸BSO (19); however, laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and BSO are also occa- sionally performed (30). Care must be taken when performing LAVH due to the higher risk of injuring the urinary tract during this procedure (odds ratio = 3.13; 95% CI: 1.06‑9.28) compared to abdominal hysterectomy (33). Among women with Lynch syndrome, 13% are diagnosed with endome- trial/ovarian cancer and colon cancer synchronously or metachronously (20): endometrial/ovarian cancer is diagnosed first in 41‑43%, endometrial and ovarian cancer are diagnosed synchronously in 7‑14% and colon cancer is diagnosed first in 42‑51% of the cases (20,34). If colon cancer is diagnosed first, the next tumor to develop is endometrial and ovarian cancer in 84 and 14% of the cases, respectively (34). Based on those results, RRS following initial diagnosis of colon cancer may prevent the onset of endometrial or ovarian cancer (20). Thus, in patients with Lynch syndrome, TAH/BSO may be performed at the same time as surgery for colon cancer (32).

4. Effects of RRS

Over a mean follow-up of 24.2 months following RRSO for HBOC, the hazard ratio for breast or gynecological cancers, such as ovarian, Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer, was found to be 0.25 (95% CI: 0.08‑0.74) (28). A meta‑analysis of 10 studies on the efficacy of RRSO reported hazard ratios of 0.21 (95% CI: 0.12‑0.39) for onset of ovarian and Fallopian tube cancer and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.37‑0.65) for onset of breast cancer, indicating that the risk of developing these cancers was reduced following RRSO (35). Over a mean follow-up period of 3 years, the overall mortality was also found to be reduced in patients who underwent RRSO compared to those who did not (3 vs. 10%, respectively) (36). Finch et al (17) observed 5,783 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 muta- tion prospectively for an average of 5.6 years and reported hazard ratios for all-cause mortality following RRSO of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.24‑0.38) and 0.33 (95% CI: 0.22‑0.50) for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively.

In patients with Lynch syndrome, Schmeler et al (20) observed a significantly decreased incidence of endometrial cancer over a mean follow-up period of 13.3 years following RRS compared to that over a follow-up of 7.4 years in non-RRS patients (0.000 vs. 0.045 per woman-year; P<0.001). For ovarian cancer, the incidence did not differ significantly in a follow-up of 11.2 years following RRS compared to that in a follow-up of 10.6 years in non-RRS patients (0.000 vs. 0.005 per woman-year; P=0.09). Those results indicated that RRS

significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome, but did not affect the risk of ovarian cancer. In a study of RRS at the age 30 years for women with Lynch syndrome with an annual gynecological examination, Chen et al (37) observed that surgical management increased survival by 2.5 years. When comparing RRS with annual screening (transvaginal ultrasound + endometrial biopsy + measuring serum CA125 levels), it was estimated that 75 surgeries were required to save one life and that 28 and 6 RRS procedures were required to prevent one case of ovarian cancer and endo- metrial cancer, respectively (37).


5. Complications and surveillance following RRS

There are few complications associated with RRSO for HBOC. Kauff et al (28) reported complications in 4 of 98 women following RRSO, including 1 case each of infection; perfora- tion of the bladder, from which the patient recovered in 5 days; distal obstruction of the small bowel, which developed 8 weeks following RRSO; and perforation of the uterus by a uterine manipulator. All these events were caused by BSO alone and no complications occurred in the 11 women who underwent hysterectomy at the time of RRSO. Postoperative follow-up commonly includes bone densitometry with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, yearly CA125 serum testing and yearly pelvic examination; however, there is no consensus on the optimal approach and standardized postoperative methods for follow-up are required (38). Tumors may develop following RRSO, with a particular residual risk of breast, ovarian and Fallopian tube cancer (35). The cumulative incidence of primary peritoneal cancer has been estimated to be 4.3% at 20 years following RRSO, including 4 of 7 women who succumbed to their disease, with an average survival of 3 years (39). A mean of 5.3 years had elapsed between RRSO and cancer diagnosis (median, 3 years). Finch et al (17) estimated the risk of peri- toneal cancer in the 20 years following RRSO to be 3.9% for BRCA1 and 1.9% for BRCA2 mutation carriers. A proportion of these cases were metastases of subclinical disease present at the time of surgery and, thus, the authors recommended earlier RRSO to prevent peritoneal cancer.

Complications of TAH/BSO in Lynch syndrome are also rare. Schmeler et al (20) reported only one case of ureteral injury following creation of a Hartmann pouch, together with a ureterovaginal fistula and a ureteroenteral fistula to the pouch. The common complications associated with hysterectomy and BSO are bleeding, infection and injuries to the urinary tract and bowel, with complication rates of 1‑9% associated with hysterectomy and BSO for benign conditions (20). There is no report of follow-up after RRS in Lynch syndrome; however, surveillance for patients with Lynch syndrome with or without RRS is recommended as follows (40): For colorectal cancer, lower gastrointestinal endoscopy should be performed every 1-2 years with removal of precancerous polyps, beginning at 20-25 years, or at an age 10 years younger compared to the youngest age of diagnosis in the family; for gynecological diseases, annual cytology and histological examinations of the endometrium, transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA125 measurement are recommended; and for urinary system diseases, routine urinalysis with cytology should be performed. Recurrence of endometrial and ovarian cancer has not been


reported following RRS in Lynch syndrome (20). Primary peritoneal cancer has been reported following hysterectomy and BSO in 2 patients with Lynch syndrome (41); however, in those cases the procedures were performed following occur- rence of benign disease and endometrial cancer, respectively; thus, no case of primary peritoneal cancer following RRS has been reported. In a study of 223 patients with Lynch syndrome, a digestive system tumor developed after the initial diagnosis of endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer in 46 and 6 cases, respectively (34); however, no case with a digestive system tumor following RRS has been reported.

BSO is commonly performed in RRS for HBOC as well as Lynch syndrome. Ovarian deficiency symptoms may develop and they present a major concern, particularly in premenopausal women (24). These symptoms begin with vasomotor effects and mood disorders caused by menopausal symptoms and lead to atrophic vaginitis, incontinence, osteoporosis, dyslipidemia and associated arteriosclerotic diseases. Therapeutic methods for ovarian failure syndrome include hormone replace- ment therapies (HRTs), such as estrogen therapy (ET) and estrogen̸progesterone therapy (EPT) (42). Bone density should be measured within 1 year following surgery to evaluate the risk of osteoporosis; risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, such as hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and smoking history, should also be evaluated (43).

The side effects of HRT include endometrial, breast and ovarian cancer and ET has been found to cause endometrial cancer with a relative risk of 2.3 (95% CI: 2.1‑2.5) with estrogen use compared to non-use (44). However, in a study in which patients were randomly assigned to ET or placebo following hysterectomy for stage I or II endometrial cancer, with or without lymph node dissection, the recurrence rates were 1.9% in the placebo and 2.3% in the ET group, whereas mortality was 0.6% in the placebo and 0.8% in the ET group (45). Based on those results, ET may be administered in stage I or II endometrial cancer under careful observa- tion. EPT does not increase the risk of endometrial cancer, with a relative risk of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.56‑0.90) compared to non-HRT patients (46). Therefore, the preferred regimen in these patients is EPT, comprising 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen daily and 5-10 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate for ≥10 days over 28 days (47). However, EPT may increase the risk of breast cancer and HRT in patients with breast cancer may induce tumor cell proliferation; therefore, its use is contraindicated (24). In a study with a follow-up of 11 years, an increased risk of breast cancer was found with EPT, but not with ET (48), with hazard ratios of 1.25 (95% CI: 1.07‑1.46) with EPT and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62‑0.95) with ET. Eden (49) demonstrated that ET did not increase the risk of breast cancer for at least 7-10 years. A study with a short-term follow-up of 3.6 years following RRSO in women with a BRCA1/2 muta- tion demonstrated that HRT did not significantly increase breast cancer risk compared to that in non-HRT patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.35 (95% CI: 0.16‑11.58) (50). In BRCA1 mutation carriers, the hazard ratios for breast cancer risk are 0.63 (95% CI: 0.34‑1.16) within 3 years after HRT and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.24‑1.08) at >3 years after HRT. These results indicate that ET or EPT may reduce breast cancer risk compared to no HRT (51). The hazard ratio for ET was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.27‑0.98) and that for EPT was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.34‑1.27).

In patients with Lynch syndrome, the risk of developing breast cancer was reportedly 4-fold higher compared to that of sporadic breast cancer (52), although a variation of breast cancer risk following HRT has not been reported. However, in postmenopausal women following hysterectomy, the hazard ratio for breast cancer was found to be 0.77 (95% CI: 0.59‑1.01) with HRT compared to placebo (42). Selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) treatment reduces the risk of breast cancer by 65% compared to no HRT (53) and the risk of endometrial hyperplasia has been found not to differ between combination therapy with ≥20 mg/day bazedoxifene, a third-generation SERM, and 0.625 mg/day conjugated estrogen for 1 year, compared to placebo (54). These results indicated that HRT using a combined regimen may be used without risk of increased breast and endometrial cancer. In patients with HBOC who cannot undergo HRT, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors may be used to improve vasomotor symptoms (55) (Table I).

Pearce et al (56) reported that the relative risk (hazard ratio) of developing ovarian cancer was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.18‑1.27) with ET and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.04‑1.16) with EPT, but remained significantly increased compared to non-users. By contrast, Lacey et al (57) observed a risk of developing ovarian cancer of 1.89 (95% CI: 1.22‑2.95) with ET for >10 years and a rela- tive risk of 3.09 (95% CI: 1.68‑5.68) for EPT therapy with progestin used sequentially (progestin for <15 days per cycle) for >5 years. Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.Those findings led to the conclusion that EPT was significantly associated with the development of ovarian cancer and to a more significant extent compared to ET (57). However, another study reported that ET was associated with a significant relative risk of 2.07 (95% CI: 1.50‑2.85), whereas EPT had a relative (and non‑significant) risk of 1.18 (95% CI: 0.79‑1.76) (58). Therefore, there is currently no consensus on whether ET or EPT is better for reducing the risk of ovarian cancer.

6. Current status of RRS worldwide

The status of RRSO differs in Asia compared to Europe and the United States (US). Miller et al (59) reported that the percentage of carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations who underwent RRSO ranged between 10 and 78% in Europe and the US, but that the overwhelming majority of women were satis- fied with their decision to undergo the surgery (86.4‑97%). Factors positively associated with undergoing RRSO included demographic variables, such as age, having had children and educational level; medical variables, including family history of ovarian cancer, personal history of ovarian cancer and previous risk-reducing mastectomy; and psychosocial variables, including beliefs, higher perceived ovarian cancer risk and increased cancer-related distress. Regarding costs, in the US, the rate of prophylactic oophorectomy covered by health insurance was 18% in women with an ovarian cancer family history and 20% in women with a known BRCA muta- tion (60). Anderson et al (61) reported that the cost of RRSO was 118,605 and 116,213 US$ per BRCA1 and BRCA2 muta- tion carrier, respectively, which were lower compared to the respective screening costs of 135,858 and 124,016 US$. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) following RRSO were 18.39 and 17.69 in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers,


respectively and QALYs with screening were only 15.64 and 16.42, respectively. Those results indicated that, in patients with HBOC, RRSO is cost-effective compared to annual screening. Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

Yurgelun et al (62) reported that 21‑65% of patients with Lynch syndrome selected RRS. The percentage of women who were satisfied with their decision to undergo this type of surgery was not reported. Total hysterectomy and BSO performed as RRS in Lynch syndrome had a cost of 23,422 US$ per case and the QALY value was 25.71, while annual screening cost 68,392 US$, with a QALY value of 25.17 and annual examina- tions cost 100,484 US$, with a QALY value of 24.60. Those results suggested that RRS in Lynch syndrome is highly cost-effective compared to the other methods.

The findings of Miller et al (59) and Yurgelun et al (62) clearly support RRS as an option for patients in Europe and the US. By contrast, the number of studies on Asian patients is limited. In Japan, RRS has rarely been performed in HBOC or Lynch syndrome. In 2005, a woman in an HBOC family who did not desire BRCA1/2 genetic diagnosis underwent RRSO at the Cancer Institute Hospital in Tokyo (63). Reports of RRSO in patients with HBOC include a case at Keio University Hospital in 2008 (24) and a case at the Cancer Institute Hospital in 2011 (64). In Lynch syndrome, modified radical hysterectomy and BSO were performed as an early interven- tion at the stage of atypical endometrial hyperplasia in a case at Keio University Hospital in 2011 (65). Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.In that case, a woman

aged 46 years with an MLH1 mutation, who wanted to bear children, did not undergo surgery after endometrial hyper- plasia was found in initial screening, but underwent surgery following a histological examination that detected complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia. RRS is not common in Japan, due to the limited number of genetic counseling units and facilities that perform BRCA1/2 genetic tests, the lack of coverage of RRS for HBOC and Lynch syndrome by the health insurance system and insufficient knowledge and experience of medical staff regarding genetic diagnosis (24). In China, 12 patients with BRCA mutations were treated with RRSO (66), but RRS for Lynch syndrome has not yet been reported. In Asia, RRS is most common in Korea, based on a study on RRSO in 21 patients with HBOC (67).

7. Conclusions

RRS may reduce the risk of ovarian and breast cancer in patients with HBOC and the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer in patients with Lynch syndrome. The benefits of RRS are a lower rate of complications and higher cost-effectiveness compared to annual screening and routine examinations. However, ovarian deficiency symptoms occur postoperatively and tumors may still develop following surgery. Thus, RRS for patients with HBOC or Lynch syndrome should be performed only after informed consent is obtained, following detailed explanation of the benefits and concerns. There are several

Table I. RRS for HBOC and Lynch syndrome.

Postoperative considerations HBOC Lynch syndrome

Surgical Infection Ureteral injury complications Perforation of the bladder Ureterovaginal fistula Distal obstruction of the small bowel Ureteroenteral fistula Perforation of the uterus Treatment 20 mg/day bazedoxifene + 0.625 mg/day conjugated 20 mg/day bazedoxifene + 0.625 mg/day of ovarian estrogen, as HRT reduces the risk of breast cancer conjugated estrogen, as HRT reduces risk of deficiency and endometrial cancer. In cases with breast cancer, breast and endometrial cancers symptoms an SSRI or SNRI is initiated. Postoperative No consensus No information. As follow-up for Lynch syndrome management Bone densitometry with or without RRS, the following are recommended: Annual measurement of serum CA125 level Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy every 1-2 years Annual internal examination and removal of precancerous polyps Any of the above may be combined Annual cytology and histological examination of the endometrium, transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA125 level measurements Routine urinalysis with cytology Postoperative Breast cancer No information occurrence Ovarian cancer of tumors Fallopian tube cancer Primary peritoneal cancer

HBOC, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; HRT, hormone replacement therapy; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SNRI, sero- tonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor; RRS, risk-reducing surgery.Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.


problems associated with RRS that require further investiga- tion, including the indications for Lynch syndrome, whether hysterectomy should be combined with RRSO and follow-up measures after surgery. Addressing these issues is expected to make RRS more common and reduce the risk of cancer development in patients with HBOC or Lynch syndrome.


We would like to thank Dr M. Moriya, Dr T. Kotani and Dr K. Yuki for their helpful assistance. The authors gratefully acknowledge grant support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through a Grant‑in‑Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI), a Grant‑in‑Aid for Scientific Research (C) (22591866) and a Grant‑in‑Aid for Young Scientists (B) (24791718); the Medical Research Encouragement Prize of The Japan Medical Association; and the Keio Gijuku Academic Development Fund. The funders had no role in data collection and the decision to publish.


1. Rubin SC, Blackwood MA, Bandera C, et al: BRCA1, BRCA2, and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer gene mutations in an unselected ovarian cancer population: relationship to family history and implications for genetic testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178: 670‑677, 1998.

2. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al: The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 336: 1401‑1408, 1997.

3. Boyd J, Sonoda Y, Federici MG, et al: Clinicopathologic features of BRCA‑linked and sporadic ovarian cancer. JAMA 283: 2260-2265, 2000.

4. Werness BA, Ramus SJ, DiCioccio RA, et al: Histopathology, FIGO stage, and BRCA mutation status of ovarian cancers from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. Int J Gynecol Pathol 23: 29-34, 2004.

5. Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Betts JA, et al: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for a large proportion of ovarian carcinoma cases. Cancer 104: 2807‑2816, 2005.

6. Peltomaki P and Vasen H: Mutations associated with HNPCC predisposition ‑ Update of ICG‑HNPCC/INSiGHT mutation database. Dis Markers 20: 269-276, 2004.

7. Banno K, Yanokura M, Kobayashi Y, et al: Endometrial cancer as a familial tumor: pathology and molecular carcinogenesis (review). Curr Genomics 10: 127-132, 2009.Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

8. Hirata K, Kanemitsu S, Nakayama Y, et al: A novel germline mutation of MSH2 in a hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer patient with liposarcoma. Am J Gastroenterol 101: 193-196, 2006.

9. Banno K, Kisu I, Yanokura M, et al: Epimutation and cancer: A new carcinogenic mechanism of Lynch syndrome (Review). Int J Oncol 41: 793-797, 2012.

10. Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, et al: Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA‑mismatch‑repair genes. Int J Cancer 81: 214‑218, 1999.

11. Dunlop MG, Farrington SM, Carothers AD, et al: Cancer risk associated with germline DNA mismatch repair gene mutations. Hum Mol Genet 6: 105-110, 1997.

12. Broaddus RR, Lynch HT, Chen LM, et al: Pathologic features of endometrial carcinoma associated with HNPCC: a comparison with sporadic endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 106: 87‑94, 2006.

13. Watson P, Butzow R, Lynch HT, et al: The clinical features of ovarian cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 82: 223‑228, 2001.

14. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Genetic/familial high‑risk assesment: breast and ovarian. sionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2014.

15. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al: Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62: 676‑689, 1998.

16. King MC, Marks JH and Mandell JB; New York Breast Cancer Study Group: Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302: 643-646, 2003.

17. Finch AP, Lubinski J, Moller P, et al: Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Clin Oncol: Feb 24, 2014 (Epub ahead of print).

18. Kauff ND, Mitra N, Robson ME, et al: Risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-negative hereditary breast cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 1382‑1384, 2005.

19. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Colorectal cancer screening. screening.pdf. Accessed October 2, 2014.

20. Schmeler KM, Lynch HT, Chen LM, et al: Prophylactic surgery to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancers in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med 354: 261-269, 2006.

21. Meyer LA, Broaddus RR and Lu KH: Endometrial cancer and Lynch syndrome: clinical and pathologic considerations. Cancer Control 16: 14-22, 2009.

22. Offit K and Kauff ND: Reducing the risk of gynecologic cancer in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med 354: 293-295, 2006.

23. Kehoe SM and Kauff ND: Screening and prevention of hereditary gynecologic cancers. Semin Oncol 34: 406-410, 2007.

24. Hirasawa A, Masuda K, Akahane T, et al: Experience of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for BRCA1 mutation carrier and establishment of a system performing a preventive surgery for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in Japan: Our challenges for the future. Jpn J Clin Oncol 43: 515-519, 2013.

25. Kenkhuis MJ, de Bock GH, Elferink PO, et al: Short-term surgical outcome and safety of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Maturitas 66: 310-314, 2010.

26. Escobar PF, Starks DC, Fader AN, Barber M and Rojas-Espalliat L: Single-port risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with and without hysterectomy: surgical outcomes and learning curve analysis. Gynecol Oncol 119: 43-47, 2010.Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

27. Finch A, Shaw P, Rosen B, Murphy J, Narod SA and Colgan TJ: Clinical and pathologic findings of prophylactic salpingo‑oopho- rectomies in 159 BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol 100: 58‑64, 2006.

28. Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 346: 1609-1615, 2002.

29. Lavie O, Hornreich G, Ben-Arie A, et al: BRCA germline mutations in Jewish women with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 92: 521-524, 2004.

30. Beiner ME, Finch A, Rosen B, et al: The risk of endometrial cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. A prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 104: 7-10, 2007.

31. Villella JA, Parmar M, Donohue K, Fahey C, Piver MS and Rodabaugh K: Role of prophylactic hysterectomy in patients at high risk for hereditary cancers. Gynecol Oncol 102: 475-479, 2006.

32. Lu KH and Broaddus RR: Gynecologic cancers in Lynch syndrome/HNPCC. Fam Cancer 4: 249‑254, 2005.

33. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, et al: Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD003677, 2009.

34. Lu KH, Dinh M, Kohlmann W, et al: Gynecologic cancer as a ‘sentinel cancer’ for women with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 105: 569-574, 2005.

35. Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND and Domchek SM: Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 80‑87, 2009.

36. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al: Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA 304: 967-975, 2010.

37. Chen LM, Yang KY, Little SE, Cheung MK and Caughey AB: Gynecologic cancer prevention in Lynch syndrome/hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families. Obstet Gynecol 110: 18‑25, 2007.

38. Chapman JS, Powell CB, McLennan J, et al: Surveillance of survivors: follow-up after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers. Gynecol Oncol 122: 339-343, 2011.

39. Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al: Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. JAMA 296: 185‑192, 2006.


40. Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW, et al: Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA 296: 1507-1517, 2006.

41. Schmeler KM, Daniels MS, Soliman PT, et al: Primary peritoneal cancer after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in two patients with Lynch syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 115: 432-434, 2010.Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

42. Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, et al; Women’s Health Initiative Steering Committee: Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 291: 1701-1712, 2004.

43. Kauff ND and Barakat RR: Risk-reducing salpingo-oopho- rectomy in patients with germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 25: 2921-2927, 2007.

44. Grady D, Gebretsadik T, Kerlikowske K, Ernster V and Petitti D: Hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer risk: a meta‑analysis. Obstet Gynecol 85: 304‑313, 1995.

45. Barakat RR, Bundy BN, Spirtos NM, Bell J and Mannel RS; Gynecologic Oncology Group Study: Randomized double-blind trial of estrogen replacement therapy versus placebo in stage I or II endometrial cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 24: 587‑592, 2006.

46. Beral V, Bull D and Reeves G; Million Women Study Collaborators: Endometrial cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 365: 1543-1551, 2005.

47. Voigt LF, Weiss NS, Chu J, Daling JR, McKnight B and van Belle G: Progestagen supplementation of exogenous oestrogens and risk of endometrial cancer. Lancet 338: 274‑277, 1991.

48. Chlebowski RT, Anderson GL, Gass M, et al: Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in post- menopausal women. JAMA 304: 1684‑1692, 2010.

49. Eden JA: Why does oestrogen-only hormone therapy have such a small impact on breast cancer risk? A hypothesis. Gynecol Endocrinol 27: 170-175, 2011.

50. Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Wagner T, et al; PROSE Study Group: Effect of short-term hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk reduction after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 23: 7804‑7810, 2005.

51. Eisen A, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, et al: Hormone therapy and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 100: 1361‑1367, 2008.

52. Win AK, Young JP, Lindor NM, et al: Colorectal and other cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 30: 958‑964, 2012.

53. Sestak I and Cuzick J: Preventive therapy for breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 14: 568‑573, 2012.

54. Pickar JH, Yeh IT, Bachmann G and Speroff L: Endometrial effects of a tissue selective estrogen complex containing baze- doxifene/conjugated estrogens as a menopausal therapy. Fertil Steril 92: 1018‑1024, 2009.

55. Nelson HD, Vesco KK, Haney E, et al: Nonhormonal therapies for menopausal hot flashes: systematic review and meta‑analysis. JAMA 295: 2057-2071, 2006.

56. Pearce CL, Chung K, Pike MC and Wu AH: Increased ovarian cancer risk associated with menopausal estrogen therapy is reduced by adding a progestin. Cancer 115: 531-539, 2009.

57. Lacey JV Jr, Brinton LA, Leitzmann MF, et al: Menopausal hormone therapy and ovarian cancer risk in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study Cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1397‑1405, 2006.

58. Hildebrand JS, Gapstur SM, Feigelson HS, Teras LR, Thun MJ and Patel AV: Postmenopausal hormone use and incident ovarian cancer: Associations differ by regimen. Int J Cancer 127: 2928‑2935, 2010.

59. Miller SM, Roussi P, Daly MB and Scarpato J: New strategies in ovarian cancer: uptake and experience of women at high risk of ovarian cancer who are considering risk-reducing salpingo- oophorectomy. Clin Cancer Res 16: 5094-5106, 2010.

60. Kuerer HM, Hwang ES, Anthony JP, et al: Current national health insurance coverage policies for breast and ovarian cancer prophylactic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 7: 325-332, 2000.

61. Anderson K, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, et al: Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med 144: 397-406, 2006.

62. Yurgelun MB, Mercado R, Rosenblatt M, et al: Impact of genetic testing on endometrial cancer risk-reducing practices in women at risk for Lynch syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 127: 544-551, 2012.

63. Ichikawa Y, Hirai Y, Hasumi K and Utsunomiya J: Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in a woman with high-risk for ovarian carcinoma: A case report. Kanto J Obstet Gynecol 42: 9-14, 2005 (In Japanese).

64. Arai M, Iwase H, Nishimura S, Iwase T and Takizawa K: Risk-reducing surgery for patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Jpn Soc Fam Tumors 12: A27, 2012 (In Japanese).

65. Nakamura K, Hirasawa A, Akahane T, et al: A case of Lynch syndrome intervened early after genetic testing. Tokyo J Obstet Gynecol 60: 293-297, 2011 (In Japanese).

66. Kwong A, Wong CH, Shea C, Suen DT and Choi CL: Choice of management of southern Chinese BRCA mutation carriers. World J Surg 34: 1416-1426, 2010.

67. Kim D, Kang E, Hwang E, et al: Factors affecting the decision to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among women with BRCA gene mutation. Fam Cancer 12: 621‑628, 2013. Prophylactic Hysterectomy Review Paper.

Calculate the price of your order

The price of a paper depends on the number of pages, academic level and the urgency. Our prices are discounted and start from as low as $10 per page. To know how much you would pay for an order, fill in the basic paper details.

Confidentiality and Security

We take confidentially of our customers seriously. This is the reason we use only PayPal to make payments that require only an email. This means you can order and pay for your order without disclosing your full identity and with no trace to you or your credit/debit card details as this information is only shared with PayPal, a trusted international payment system. Our website is also encrypted to ensure additional security. In addition, we never sell your paper nor divulge the paper or client details to anyone.


We write all our papers from scratch and never plagiarize at all. Our papers are 100% original with no plagiarism element even when many students place a similar order with us. You are guaranteed of a custom-made non-plagiarized paper that you cannot find anywhere else even in part whenever you order from us.


Professional writers in the various fields who have a wealth of experience in academia write all your papers. You are, therefore, guaranteed of a well-researched paper with the right content and in the correct structure. All our papers are properly referenced and any sources used are correctly cited using your preferred referencing styles such as APA, MLA, OSCOLA, Harvard, Chicago/Turabian, Vancouver, or any other referencing style you prefer.

Our services are legal and acceptable

Do you know that it is legal to seek our academic writing services and is not against the policies of your university, college or any other learning institution?
You are not prohibited from getting our custom-made papers if you use them in any of the following ways;

  1. As a source for additional understanding of the subject
  2. As a source of ideas for your research, in this case, it should be properly referenced
  3. For proper paraphrasing as per your schools plagiarism definition and acceptable paraphrase
  4. Direct citing in your work, when properly referenced.