The impact of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery in premenopausal women at high risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer due to Lynch syndrome
Women with Lynch syndrome (LS) have a significantly increased lifetime risk of endometrial cancer (40–60 %) and ovarian cancer (7–12 %). Currently there is little evidence to support the efficacy of screening for the early detection of these cancers. Another option is risk-reducing hysterectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). Research on the impact of BSO in premenopausal women with a non-LS associated family history cancer has generally shown that women have a high level of satisfaction about their decision to undergo surgery. However, debilitating menopausal symptoms and sexual dysfunction are common post-surgical problems. We used a mixed methods study to explore the impact of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery in women with LS: 24 women were invited to take part; 15 (62.5 %) completed validated questionnaires and 12 (50 %) participated in semi-structured interviews. Our results suggest that risk reducing surgery does not lead to significant psychological distress and the women tend not to think or worry much about developing cancer. However, they tend to be distressed about the physical and somatic symptoms associated with menopause; their social well-being is somewhat affected, but sexual difficulties are minimal. The women reported being overwhelmingly satisfied with their decision to have surgery and with the quality of information they received prior to the operation. However, they felt underprepared for menopausal symptoms and received conflicting advice about whether or not to use HRT. Recommendations from the study include that professionals discuss the menopause, its side effects and HRT in detail prior to surgery.
KeywordsLynch syndrome Psychosocial impact Risk reducing surgery Endometrial cancer Ovarian cancer
The authors would like to thank the women who agreed to participate in this study for all their time and effort.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study has been approved by Northwest 6 Research Ethics Committee, Greater Manchester and has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All participants gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. All details that might disclose the identity of the participants have been omitted.
- 2.Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, Salovaara R, Aaltonen LA, de la Chapelle A et al (1999) Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer 8:214–218. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990412)81:2<214:AID-IJC8>3.0.CO;2-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Miller SM, Roussi P, Daly MB, Scarpato J (2010) 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(21):5094–5106. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2953 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013) Familial breast cancer: classification and care of people at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer NICE clinical guideline 164Google Scholar
- 15.Bresser PJ, Seynaeve C, Van Gool AR et al (2007) The course of distress in women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer due to an (identified) genetic susceptibility who opt for prophylactic mastectomy and/or salpingo-oophorectomy. Eur J Cancer 43(1):95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.09.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Lodder LN, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW et al (2002) One year follow-up of women opting for presymptomatic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2: emotional impact of the test outcome and decisions on risk management (surveillance or prophylactic surgery). Breast Cancer Res Treat 73(2):97–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W (1979) Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 41:209–218, PMID:472086Google Scholar
- 27.Smith JA, Osborn M (2003) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Smith JA (ed) Qualitative Psychology. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kornblith AB (1998) Psychosocial adaptation of cancer survivors. In: Holland J (ed) Psycho-oncology. Oxford University Press, New York, p 1998Google Scholar
- 29.Zabora J, Brintzenhofeszoc K, Curbow B, Hooker C, Piantadosi S (2001) The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psycho-Oncol 10:19–28. doi: 10.1002/1099-1611(200101/02)10:1<19:AID-PON501>3.0.CO;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Schlich-Bakker KJ, Warlam-Rodenhuis CC, van Echtelt J, van den Bout J, Ausems MG, Kroode HF (2006) Short term psychological distress in patients actively approached for genetic counselling after diagnosis of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 42:2722–2728. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.05.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Cohen J (1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 1st edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar