Salpingectomy in Benign Hysterectomy

  • Meritxell Gràcia
  • Jordina Munrós
  • Mariona Rius
  • Francisco Carmona
Chapter

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological cancer without an effective screening method. Recent research findings point out that type 2 ovarian cancer (high-grade serous carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and undifferentiated carcinoma) could origin from a premalignant lesion developed in the Fallopian tube, known as serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Since more than 70% of high-grade serous carcinoma has evidence of STIC, it seems rational to consider whether the salpingectomy would reduce the incidence and death rates from ovarian cancer.

Hysterectomy is one of the most performed gynecological surgical procedures all over the world. If we take the physiopathology of ovarian cancer into account, prophylactic salpingectomy during benign surgeries might reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. The ACOG recommendations in 2015 were focused on discussing with the patient the potential benefits of removing the Fallopian tubes. Randomized controlled trials are needed to support this approach to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer.

Keywords

Opportunistic salpingectomy Ovarian epithelial cancer Ovarian reserve Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) Benign hysterectomy Benign pelvic surgery Tubal ligation 

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cibula D, Widschwendter M, Májek O, Dusek L. Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):55–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenblatt KA, Thomas DB. Reduced risk of ovarian cancer in women with a tubal ligation or hysterectomy. The World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1996;5:933–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker JL, Powell CB, Chen L, Carter J, Bae Jump VL, Parker LP, Borowsky ME, Gibb RK. Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the prevention of ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2015;121(13):2108–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erekson EA, Martin DK, Ratner ES. Oophorectomy: the debate between ovarian conservation and elective oophorectomy. Menopause. 2013;20:110–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu X, Desai V. Hospital variation in the practice of bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian conservation in 2012. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perera HK, Ananth CV, Richards CA, et al. Variation in ovarian conservation in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:717–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;121:709–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parker WH. Bilateral oophorectomy versus ovarian conservation: effects on long-term women’s health. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:161–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Committee opinion no. 620: salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):279–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietl J, Wischhusen J, Häusler SFM. The post-reproductive Fallopian tube: better removed? Hum Reprod. 2011;26(11):2918–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurman RJ, Shih IM. The dualistic model of ovarian carcinogenesis: revisited, revised, and expanded. Am J Pathol. 2016;186(4):733–47.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nezhat FR, Apostol R, Nezhat C, Pejovic T. New insights in the pathophysiology of ovarian cancer and implications for screening and prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(3):262–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature. 2011;474:609–15. Erratum in: Nature. 2012;490:298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mc Alpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Ovarian Cancer Research Program of British Columbia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandoval C, Fung-Kee-Fung M, Gilks B, et al. Examining the use of salpingectomy with hysterectomy in Canada. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(3):173–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG, Fitzgerald CT, et al. Ovarian response to gonadotropins after laparoscopic salpingectomy or the division of fallopian tubes for hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:1464–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morelli M, Venturella R, Mocciaro R, et al. Prophylactic salpingectomy in premenopausal low-risk women for ovarian cancer: primum non nocere. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:448–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Falconer H, Yin L, Grönberg H, Altman D. Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daly MB, Dresher CH, Yates M, Jeter J, Karlan B, Alberts D, Lu KH. Salpingectomy as a means to reduce ovarian cancer risk. Cancer Prev Res. 2015;8:342–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meritxell Gràcia
    • 1
  • Jordina Munrós
    • 1
  • Mariona Rius
    • 1
  • Francisco Carmona
    • 1
  1. 1.Gynecology DepartmentInstitut Clínic de Ginecologia, Obstetrícia i Neonatologia, Hospital Clínic de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations