Abstract
Background
Risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy is gold standard for preventing tubo-ovarian-cancer in women at increased risk. However when performed in premenopausal women, it results in premature-menopause and associated detrimental health consequences. This, along with acceptance of the central role of the fallopian-tube in etiopathogenesis of high-grade serous carcinoma, by far the most common type of tubo-ovarian-cancer, has led to risk-reducing early-salpingectomy with delayed-oophorectomy being proposed as a two-step surgical alternative for pre-menopausal women declining/delaying oophorectomy.
Primary-objective
To evaluate impact on sexual function of risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy, within a two-step risk-reducing early-salpingectomy with delayed-oophorectomy tubo-ovarian-cancer prevention strategy in premenopausal women at increased risk of tubo-ovarian-cancer.
Hypothesis
Risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy is non-inferior for sexual and endocrine function compared to controls; risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy is superior for sexual/endocrine function, non-inferior in terms of quality-of-life, and equivalent in satisfaction compared to the standard risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy.
Trial-design
Multi-centre, observational cohort trial with three arms: risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy with delayed-oophorectomy; risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy; controls (no surgery). Consenting individuals undergo an ultrasound, serum CA125 and FSH and provide information on medical history, family-history, quality-of-life, sexual function, cancer worry, psychological well-being and satisfaction/regret. Questionnaire follow-up takes place annually for three years. Risk-reducing early-salpingectomy women can undergo delayed-oophorectomy at a later date of their choosing or definitely by menopause.
Major inclusion/exclusion criteria
Inclusion-criteria: Premenopausal; ≥30 years; at increased risk of tubo-ovarian-cancer (mutation carriers or on the basis of a strong family-history); completed their family (for surgical arms).
Exclusion-criteria: Postmenopausal; previous bilateral salpingectomy or bilateral oophorectomy; pregnancy; previous tubal/ovarian/peritoneal malignancy; <12 months post cancer treatment; clinical suspicion of tubal/ovarian cancer at baseline.
Primary endpoint
Sexual-function measured by validated questionnaires.
Sample size
1000 (333 per-arm).
Estimated dates for completing accrual and presenting results
It is estimated recruitment will be completed by 2023 and results published by 2027.
Trial registration
ISRCTN registry: 25173360 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN25173360).
Introduction
BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers have a 17%-44% lifetime risk of tubo-ovarian-cancer and a 69-72% lifetime risk of breast-cancer.1 Primary surgical prevention in the form of risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy is the most effective option and gold-standard for tubo-ovarian-cancer risk reduction, particularly given the absence of an effective national screening programme. Premenopausal risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy leads to premature surgical menopause which has detrimental long-term health sequelae (increased risk of coronary-heart-disease, osteoporosis, vasomotor symptoms, sexual dysfunction, neurocognitive decline), especially if individuals are unable to use hormone-replacement-therapy.2–5 Widespread acceptance of a central role for the fallopian tube as the site of origin of most high-grade-serous-carcinomas, by far the most common and aggressive subtype of adnexal malignancy, from a precursor known as serous-tubal-intraepithelial-carcinoma has led to the attractive proposal of a two-step alternative tubo-ovarian-cancer surgical prevention strategy in premenopausal women who have completed their family but decline or wish to delay risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy. This involves risk-reducing early-salpingectomy as the first-step followed by delayed-oophorectomy after menopause. Risk-reducing early-salpingectomy with delayed-oophorectomy has the advantage of providing some level of risk-reduction whilst conserving ovarian function and avoiding the negative health consequences of premature menopause. Lack of clarity on several key issues strengthens the case to offer risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy solely within a research setting. The precise estimate of tubo-ovarian-cancer risk reduction and long-term health outcomes with risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy remain unclear. Salpingectomy will not prevent tubo-ovarian-cancer arising outside the tube. Residual fimbrial tissue may remain on the ovarian surface after salpingectomy in 9.8% of cases,6 and could be a potential site for malignant transformation which could also theoretically arise from tubal-type tissue within the ovarian stroma (endosalpingiosis/cortical inclusion-cysts). The etiopathogenesis of tubo-ovarian-cancer is complex and our current understanding incomplete. It has been suggested that there are different types of serous-tubal-intraepithelial-carcinoma and the natural history, progression rates, outcomes and rate limiting step in development of tubo-ovarian-cancer associated with each type remains unknown.7 In addition, there are a proportion of high-grade-serous-carcinoma with histologically normal tubes (even after complete examination using a sectioning-and-extensively-examining-the-fimbriated-end protocol) and serous-tubal-intraepithelial-carcinoma may not be the precursor of all high-grade-serous-carcinoma.8 The long-term impact of salpingectomy on sexual-function, endocrine-function and onset of menopause is unknown. There are concerns from clinicians regarding attrition from delayed-oophorectomy and a proportion of patients who do not undergo delayed-oophorectomy may develop tubo-ovarian-cancer. In addition, uncertainties remain around cost-effectiveness.
We present the protocol for the ‘Preventing Ovarian Cancer through early Excision of Tubes and late Ovarian Removal’ (PROTECTOR) Trial which evaluates risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy in UK-women who are at increased risk of tubo-ovarian-cancer. The full PROTECTOR protocol can be found at http://protector.org.uk/ (ISRCTN25173360). Our hypotheses are: 1) risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy is non-inferior for sexual and endocrine function compared to controls and 2) risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy is superior for sexual/endocrine function, noninferior in terms of quality-of-life, and equivalent in satisfaction compared to the standard risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy.
Methods
Trial-design
Multi-centre, observational cohort trial with three-arms: risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy; risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy; controls (no surgery). Eligible individuals self-select which of the three-arms they wish to opt for. Randomisation to a control-arm involving no surgery is unethical in high-risk women as is randomisation to a risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy arm given the lack of clarity on tubo-ovarian-cancer risk reduction. Furthermore, randomisation is unacceptable to women and reported to be a barrier to participation in a similar clinical-trial amongst BRCA1/BRCA2-carriers and gynaecological-oncologists/geneticists.9
A pragmatic way forward is a prospective observational cohort study based on a standardized nationally acceptable protocol, with a well-designed patient information-sheet (highlighting advantages and limitations) and comprehensive evaluation of short and long-term outcomes. This is a UK-wide study with 41 sites planned (30 currently active and 11 in set up).
Funding
The study is funded by Barts Charity and Rosetrees-Trust.
Participants
Inclusion-criteria include premenopausal women ≥30years who have completed their family (surgical-arms), and are at increased risk of tubo-ovarian-cancer. Women may be at increased risk of tubo-ovarian cancer if they carry a pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutation in the BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 gene or based on a strong family history of tubo-ovarian cancer (BRCA-negative or BRCA-unknown with ≥2 first–degree-relatives with tubo-ovarian-cancer or ≥3 relatives with tubo-ovarian-cancer (affected relatives must be on the same (maternal/paternal) side of the family)).
Exclusion-criteria include, postmenopausal women (FSH >40), women who have undergone previous bilateral-salpingectomy/bilateral-oophorectomy, those with clinical suspicion of tubo-ovarian cancer at baseline, women with a history of tubo-ovarian/peritoneal malignancy, women <12 months post cancer treatment, pregnancy, or those unable to provide informed consent.
Recruitment is undertaken through cancer-genetics, high-risk familial cancer, gynaecological-oncology and general gynaecology outpatient clinics within NHS hospitals and primary-care.
Objectives
The primary objective is to evaluate impact on sexual-function of early-salpingectomy within risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy, as a two-step tubo-ovarian-cancer prevention strategy in premenopausal women at increased risk of tubo-ovarian-cancer.
Secondary objectives are to evaluate impact of risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy on endocrine-function; quality-of-life; health and well-being; psychological-health; satisfaction/regret; cancer-risk perception; incidence of tubal in-situ and invasive tubo-ovarian-cancer; surgical-outcomes; to develop utility-scores for early-salpingectomy and determine cost-effectiveness; and establish a national register to facilitate long-term follow-up of women undergoing risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy.
Endpoints
The primary-endpoint is sexual function (measured by the Sexual-Activity-Questionnaire 10 and Sexual Quality-of-Life 3D questionnaire).11 Secondary-endpoints include (but are not limited to): quality-of-life and psychological-health, incidence of tubal-in situ and invasive tubo-ovarian-cancer, surgical-morbidity and cost-effectiveness.
Interventions
Figure-1 summarises interventions and relevant time-points.
Figure 1. PROTECTOR Trial Flowchart.
FU – follow up; USS – ultrasound scan; RRSO – risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy; RRESDO – risk reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy; ES – early salpingectomy; DO – delayed oophorectomy; PIS – participant information sheet; FSH – follicular stimulating hormone
Baseline Screening Tests
A baseline hormonal profile (FSH) is measured for all. Serum CA125 and ultrasound-scans are done for risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy/risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy arms only.
Interventional-Questionnaires
Questionnaires used in the study have been derived from validated-questionnaires. Questionnaires include the Sexual-Activity-Questionnaire; Sexual-Quality-of-Life 3D questionnaire; endocrine-subscale of the Functional-Assessment of Cancer-Therapy-Endocrine-Symptom questionnaire; EQ5D-5L questionnaire; Hospital-Anxiety-&-Depression Scale; Impact-of-Events-Scale; Decision-Regret-Scale and 1-item from Madalinska 2005, (‘I am satisfied with the decision I have made’ on a 5-point Likert-scale); cancer-risk perception is assessed with ‘Compared with other people of your age and sex, do you think your chances of getting cancer at some point in your life are: much-lower, lower, about-the-same, higher, much-higher?’. An additional risk-item used is ‘On a scale from 0-to-100, where 0=no chance at all and 100=absolutely certain, what do you think are the chances that you will get cancer sometime during your lifetime?’. Tubo-ovarian-cancer worry is assessed by a 4-item four-point Likert-scale.
Interviews
A small number of women from each study-arm are invited to one-to-one semi-structured in-depth interviews. Women who elect to have surgery will be followed up with another interview one-year post surgery (risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy and risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy).
Risk-Reducing Surgeries
Volunteers opting for the risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy/risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy arms undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or early-salpingectomy with delayed-oophorectomy as per our surgical protocol (Supplementary-1). Timing of delayed-oophorectomy in the risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy arm is non-prescriptive and dependent on the wishes of the individual. However, participants will be advised to undergo delayed-oophorectomy once they become post-menopausal. Further counselling will be arranged if women are postmenopausal, and are not complaint with delayed-oophorectomy. Whilst minimal-access surgery is the preferred route, it is not mandatory and the choice of surgical route will be made by the treating clinician. Peritoneal washings are taken during all risk-reducing surgeries and sent for cytology. Participants who are in the control arm are also subsequently (in a few years’ time) free to switch to any one of the surgical intervention arms. If any control arm women are using CHC (combined hormonal contraception) at age 50 years, they will be advised to stop the CHC, switch to non-hormonal contraception and have a repeat FSH in 3 months.
Pathological Examination and Central Pathology Review
All ovaries and fallopian tubes are submitted in their entirety for histological examination and the tubes are processed using a sectioning-and-extensively-examining-the-fimbriated-end protocol (Supplementary-2). In addition to local histopathology reporting at recruitment sites, all tubal and ovarian histopathology slides and cytology slides from peritoneal washings are reviewed by an independent team of central specialist gynaecological pathologists. Blocks from consenting participants are stored in a bio-resource facility for future translational work.
Management of abnormal histopathology/cytology results
Invasive disease is managed as per local clinical protocols. Participants will be referred to their regional cancer-centre gynaecological-oncology multidisciplinary-team for further investigations, staging and management. Table-1 summarises the management of serous-tubal-intraepithelial-carcinoma lesions. Investigation and treatment outcome data will be obtained by the co-ordinating centre from the treating clinician/regional cancer-centre.
Table 1. Management and follow up of STIC lesions (without invasion).
| Management | Histopathology and Cytology | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| STIC* with positive cytology | STIC* with negative cytology | STIC* with missing cytology | |
| Staging CT Chest, abdomen, pelvis | ☑ | ☑ | ☑ |
| Surgical staging** | ☑ | Not indicated unless abnormality on CT suggesting otherwise | Not indicated unless abnormality on CT suggesting otherwise |
| Panel genetic testing*** | ☑ | ☑ | ☑ |
All cases of isolated STIC identified at salpingectomy alone (patients undergoing early salpingectomy) should have completion oophorectomy
Hysterectomy, omentectomy, pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy (excision of all visible disease)
BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 testing if not previously undertaken
Follow–up
Participants are followed up actively at 1 month, 3 months (post-surgery in the surgical arms) and annually for three-years (all arms). Patients are followed up directly by the central coordinating centre trials unit as well as the local clinical site. Follow-up compliance will be ensured by direct contact with the patient as well as good communication and liaison with the local site clinical team and the patient’s general practitioner. Long-term passive annual follow-up is planned through establishment of a national registry/database as well as linkage via cancer registries, or databases such as Office-for-National-Statistics, Hospital-Episode-Statistics or NHS-Digital.
Data-collection
Data-collection is standardised and is collected on electronic case-report-forms hosted on a customised study database via a web interface. Figure-1 summarises data-collection time-points. on electronic case-report-forms will be identified by a unique alphanumerical volunteer-reference-number auto generated by the database each time a new participant is enrolled into the trial. The database will enable participant flagging/tracking and electronic data upload/access.
We aim to use the NHS number as the primary identifier when linking to national registries and to track individuals throughout the NHS.
Sample-size
Sample-size is based on the primary-outcome of Sexual Function, assessed by the Sexual-Activity-Questionnaire. Sample-size is estimated for 90% power and with either alpha=0.05 two-sided (for superiority tests) or alpha=0.025 one-sided (for non-inferiority tests). For a non-inferiority margin (△)=0.9 on the Sexual Activity Questionnaire pleasure-scale, between risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy and Controls, the sample-size needed is 266/arm. For testing superiority of risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy compared to risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy, to achieve a mean difference=1 on the Sexual-Assessment-Questionnaire pleasure-scale (SD=3.2-3.5) the sample size needed is 237/ arm.
However, these calculations assume random allocation to the arms. Because participants self-select their arm (non-randomised), it will be necessary to adjust all tests for potential confounders that might relate to both arm and outcome. Assuming inclusion of confounders into a regression model reduces the partial r-squared brought about by treatment arm by 20%, then the necessary sample-size increase to maintain power is by 25%. For our primary-hypotheses, the largest sample-size needed is therefore 266*1.25=333 per–arm, resulting in an overall sample-size of approximately 1000 patients allocated equally between each-arm.
Statistical methods
Baseline characteristics will be calculated using descriptive statistics. Appropriate statistical tests will be used for analyses. Chi-square tests will compare categorical variables and t-Test (parametric) and Mann-Whitney (nonparametric) tests will compare continuous outcome variables between groups. Random-effects-models adjusted for covariates/confounders (including age, family-history, pathogenic-variant type, parity, contraception, body-mass index, subfertility, etc.) will be used to compare outcomes between the different groups over time. Non-inferiority is established when the 97.5% CI does not cross the non-inferiority margin. A two-sided 95% CI will be used to test equivalency of satisfaction. The different non-inferiority/equivalency margins for various outcomes are based on clinically meaningful changes where available or set at no more than 0.5S.D worse than values from prior studies.
Utility-scores
Index-values from the Sexual Quality-of-Life-3D questionnaire will be used to generate utility-values for salpingectomy. Utility-values generated will be used to calculate Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years which will be used in an economic-evaluation
Cost-effectiveness
A Markov-model will be developed for cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy. A lifetime horizon will be used to capture all costs-&-benefits and the analysis will be conducted using a healthcare perspective. A 3.5% discount rate will be applied to costs-&-outcomes. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity-analyses will be performed. The incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio will be calculated and compared with the National-Institute-for-Health-and-Care-Excellence cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold to determine cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy.
Discussion
This trial protocol describes a prospective non-randomised multicentre UK cohort-trial evaluating the impact of risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy in pre-menopausal women, at increased risk of tubo-ovarian-cancer. PROTECTOR ensures that an early-salpingectomy tubo-ovarian-cancer prevention strategy can be offered to high-risk UK-women who choose to decline/delay oophorectomy, within a safe clinical-study setting, with strict protocols, proper consent, monitoring and independent oversight. Risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy permits women to retain their natural hormones for longer and limit harmful consequences of premature menopause. Risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy also enables women who have completed childbearing but too young for oophorectomy by current clinical guidelines, the option of undergoing risk-reducing surgery. The trial will provide long-term outcome data to address knowledge-gaps which currently exist including impact of risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy on sexual/endocrine function, quality-of-life, psychosocial consequences, utility-scores and cost-effectiveness. Data will be collected on attrition from delayed-oophorectomy and interval cancers.
This study will generate new insights to inform provision of NHS care and tubo-ovarian-cancer prevention guidelines in women at increased tubo-ovarian-cancer risk. The bio-resource generated will facilitate translational research and secondary-studies to provide further insights into disease biology.
Currently, there are four other non-randomised trials investigating different aspects of risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy being undertaken in France (Fimbriectomy trial),12 the Netherlands (TUBA-TUbectomy with delayed oophorectomy to improve quality-of-life as alternative for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation-carriers),13 and US (PSDO–Prophylactic-Salpingectomy with Delayed Oophorectomy;14 WISP-Women Choosing Surgical Prevention Trial).15 The ongoing trials vary with respect to primary outcomes, design and sample sizes. The Fimbriectomy trial is powered on tubo-ovarian/primary-peritoneal cancer incidence, while the others are powered on menopause related quality-of-life (TUBA), delayed-oophorectomy uptake (PSDO) and sexual-function (WISP). The Fimbriectomy trial does not involve delayed-oophorectomy. delayed-oophorectomy is undertaken in the TUBA trial at 40-45 years in BRCA1 and 45-50 years in BRCA2 carriers and in the PSDO trial three years after risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy. Delayed-oophorectomy is undertaken in premenopausal women well before onset of menopause in the TUBA and WISP studies. Similarly, in the WISP study, women are given the choice as to when to undergo delayed-oophorectomy but are encouraged to have this done between 40-50 years. While the TUBA and the PSDO trials only include BRCA carriers, the Fimbriectomy trial also includes women ascertained using family history. The WISP trial in addition offers risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy to PALB2/BARD1/MSH2/MSH6/MLH1/PMS2/EPCAM mutation carriers. However, validated data linking BARD1/EPCAM/PMS2 mutations with increased tubo-ovarian-cancer risk are currently lacking. In addition, mutations in the Lynch syndrome genes are not thought to be associated with an increased risk of high-grade-serous-carcinoma but with ovarian endometriosis-related neoplasms, such as endometrioid/clear-cell carcinoma which typically present at earlier-stages with a better prognosis.
In conclusion risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy remains gold-standard for preventing tubo-ovarian-cancer in women at high-risk women. However, when performed in premenopausal women, it increases risk of coronary-heart-disease, osteoporosis, neurocognitive-decline, vasomotor-symptoms and sexual-dysfunction. Use of hormone-replacement-therapy until natural menopause mitigates risks and there is data supporting safety of short-term hormone-replacement-therapy use in BRCA-carriers without a personal history of breast-cancer. Acceptance of the central role of the fallopian-tube in tubo-ovarian-cancer etiopathogenesis of together with health consequences of premature menopause from early-oophorectomy has led to risk-reducing early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy being proposed as a two-step surgical alternative for pre-menopausal women who have completed childbearing but prefer to decline/delay oophorectomy. It is essential that this is robustly evaluated in clinical trials to address various knowledge-gaps and inform future practice. PROTECTOR, TUBA and WISP are three trials offering risk-reducing early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy which are currently open to recruitment. These studies will generate important data and provide an evidence base to inform future international practice with respect to risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy-with-delayed-oophorectomy in high-risk women. International collaboration is warranted to pool outcome data from these studies to better understand the benefits and safety profile (including reduction in tubo-ovarian cancer risk) with risk-reducing-early-salpingectomy with delayed-oophorectomy and inform policy and management guidelines in the future.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the entire medical, nursing, and administrative staff who work on the PROTECTOR trial and to the independent members of the trial steering committee (chaired by Mr Tim Mould), data monitoring committee (chaired by Prof Richard Edmondson) and central pathology committee (chaired by Prof Naveena Singh). We acknowledge support provided by a number of charities and stakeholders including-BRCA Umbrella (Caroline Presho), The Eve Appeal, Ovacome, Target Ovarian Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Action. We are grateful to the central trials coordinating team at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, QMUL including Charlotte Tyson and Kelly Mousa. We are grateful to the study sponsor Queen Mary University of London. In addition, we are grateful to all our collaborators (supplementary material-3): Dr Munaza Ahmed (North East Thames Cancer Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Aarti Sharma (Cardiff and Vale UHB), Dr Gautam Mehra (Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Adam Rosenthal (University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Ian Harley (Belfast Health & Social Care Trust), Prof Emma Crosbie (Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Michelle Mackintosh (Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust), Prof Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami (Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust), Prof Omer Devaja (Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust), Prof Sudha Sundar (Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust), Dr Tim Duncan (Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Iain Cameron (Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Claire Newton (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Sonali Kaushik (Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust), Dr Angela Brady (London North West Healthcare NHS Trust), Dr Supratik Chattopadhyay (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust), Dr Natalia Povolotskaya (Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust), Dr Rema Iyer (East Kent Hospitals University NHS Trust), Dr Lucy Side (University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Katie Snape (St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Anil Tailor (Royal Surrey County Hospital Foundation Trust), Dr Manon van Seters (Worcestershire Acute Hospital Trust), Dr Katherine Edey (Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Sian Taylor (Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Suma Kodiathodi (North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Partha Sengupta (County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Scott Fegan (NHS Lothian), Dr Karin Williamson (Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust), Dr Mahalakshmi Gurumurthy (NHS Grampian), Dr Kalpana Ragupathy (NHS Tayside), Dr Andrew Phillips (University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Mark Willett (East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust), Dr Tony Chalhoub (The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Sanjay Rao (South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Dr Nicholas Matthews (South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust). Beena Abdul (Northampton General Hospitals NHS Trust), Ibraheem Hamoodi (Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust), Claire Park (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust), Jane Borley (Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust), Thumuluru Kavitha Madhuri (Royal Surrey County Hospital Foundation Trust), Richard Hutson (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust), Kerryn Lutchman-Singh (Swansea Bay University Health Board), Richard Peevor (Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board).
Funding
This trial is funded by Barts and The London Charity and Roseetrees Trust.
Footnotes
Contribution to authorship
Trial conception and design: RM
Protocol development: RM, UM, GE, NS, FG, MB, RL, WGM, RG, NW, GB, GR
Pathology committee: NS, WGM, NW, RG, GB, GR, RA, RM, FG
Trial management: RM, FG, SR, CT, NS, UM, GE, ES, HH
Preparation of tables and figures: FG, RM
Initial draft of manuscript: FG, RM
Statistical aspects: MB, RM, RL
Manuscript writing and approval: All authors.
Disclaimers/Conflict of interest statement
RM declares research funding from Barts and The London Charity and Roseetrees Trust for the PROTECTOR Study and is Chief Investigator. RM declares research funding from The Eve Appeal and Cancer Research UK outside this work, as well as an honorarium for grant review from Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research and from MSD and Astrazneca for advisory board meetings. RM is supported by an NHS Innovation Accelerator (NIA) Fellowship for population testing. UM has a financial interest in Abcodia, Ltd., a company formed to develop academic and commercial development of biomarkers for screening and risk prediction. The authors declare no conflict of interest. DGE is supported through the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC1215-20007).
Contributor Information
PROTECTOR:
Katie Snape, Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami, Gautam Mehra, Angela Brady, Adam Rosenthal, Michelle MacKintosh, Ian Harley, Sudha Sundar, Claire Newton, Omer Devaja, Tim Duncan, Supratik Chattopadhyay, Natalia Povolotskaya, Rema Iyer, Lucy Side, Anil Tailor, Manon van Seters, Suma Kodiathodi, Partha Sengupta, Iain Cameron, Sonali Kaushik, Karin Williamson, Katherine Edey, Sian Taylor, Andrew Phillips, Mark Willett, Tony Chalhoub, Sanjay Rao, Nicholas Matthews, Aarti Sharma, Scott Fegan, Mahalakshmi Gurumurthy, Kalpana Ragupathy, Beena Abdul, Ibraheem Hamoodi, Claire Park, Jane Borley, Thumuluru Kavitha Madhuri, Richard Hutson, Kerryn Lutchman-Singh, and Richard Peevor
References
- 1.Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. Jama. 2017;317(23):2402–16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7112. [published Online First: 2017/06/21] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Parker WH, Feskanich D, Broder MS, et al. Long-term mortality associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):709–16. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182864350. [published Online First: 2013/05/03] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fakkert IE, Abma EM, Westrik IG, et al. Bone mineral density and fractures after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 2015;51(3):400–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.11.022. [published Online First: 2014/12/24] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rivera CM, Grossardt BR, Rhodes DJ, et al. Increased cardiovascular mortality after early bilateral oophorectomy. Menopause. 2009;16(1):15–23. doi: 10.1097/gme.0b013e31818888f7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gaba F, Manchanda R. Systematic review of acceptability, cardiovascular, neurological, bone health and HRT outcomes following risk reducing surgery in BRCA carriers. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.01.006. [published Online First: 2020/03/21] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gan C, Chenoy R, Chandrasekaran D, et al. Persistence of fimbrial tissue on the ovarian surface after salpingectomy. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2017;217(4):425.e1–25.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.06.004. [published Online First: 2017/06/15] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Howitt BE, Hanamornroongruang S, Lin DI, et al. Evidence for a Dualistic Model of High-grade Serous Carcinoma: BRCA Mutation Status, Histology, and Tubal Intraepithelial Carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2015 doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000369. [published Online First: 2015/01/13] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Eckert MA, Pan S, Hernandez KM, et al. Genomics of Ovarian Cancer Progression Reveals Diverse Metastatic Trajectories Including Intraepithelial Metastasis to the Fallopian Tube. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(12):1342–51. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Arts-de Jong M, Harmsen MG, Hoogerbrugge N, et al. Risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: patients’ and professionals’ perspectives. Gynecologic oncology. 2015;136(2):305–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.12.031. [published Online First: 2015/01/07] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Thirlaway K, Fallowfield L, Cuzick J. The Sexual Activity Questionnaire: a measure of women’s sexual functioning. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 1996;5(1):81–90. doi: 10.1007/BF00435972. [published Online First: 1996/02/01] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health economics. 2009;18(11):1261–76. doi: 10.1002/hec.1426. [published Online First: 2009/01/15] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Leblanc E, Narducci F, Farre I, et al. Radical fimbriectomy: A reasonable temporary risk-reducing surgery for selected women with a germ line mutation of BRCA 1 or 2 genes? Rationale and preliminary development. Gynecologic oncology. 2011;121(3):472–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Harmsen MG, Arts-de Jong M, Hoogerbrugge N, et al. Early salpingectomy (TUbectomy) with delayed oophorectomy to improve quality of life as alternative for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (TUBA study): a prospective non-randomised multicentre study. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:593. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1597-y. [published Online First: 2015/08/20] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.UK NSC. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme: UK National Screening Committee. 2015. [accessed 2019 Decembner]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-review-criteria-national-screening-programmes/criteria-for-appraising-the-viability-effectiveness-and-appropriateness-of-a-screening-programme.
- 15.Burke W, Coughlin SS, Lee NC, et al. Application of population screening principles to genetic screening for adult-onset conditions. Genet Test. 2001;5(3):201–11. doi: 10.1089/10906570152742245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.