Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-k78ct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-25T20:09:29.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Case 56 - A 43-Year-Old G3P3 BRCA1 Carrier Desiring Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Todd R. Jenkins
Affiliation:
University of Alabama, Birmingham
Lisa Keder
Affiliation:
Ohio State University School of Medicine, Columbus
Abimola Famuyide
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester
Kimberly S. Gecsi
Affiliation:
Medical College of Wisconsin
David Chelmow
Affiliation:
Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine
Get access

Summary

A 43-year-old, gravida 3, para 3, with a known BRCA1 gene mutation presents to the office to discuss risk-reducing surgery. Her family history is significant for breast cancer diagnosed in her mother at age 42 years, ovarian cancer in a maternal aunt at age 53 years, and ovarian cancer in her maternal grandmother at age 49 years. Last month, she underwent genetic counseling and testing revealed a BRCA1 mutation. She is otherwise healthy with no significant past medical history or surgical history. She had three uncomplicated vaginal deliveries and has regular monthly periods. She used oral contraceptive pills for birth control for 15 years prior to her husband’s vasectomy. She denies any recent weight change, fever or chills, bowel or bladder dysfunction, nausea, early satiety, or abdominal or pelvic pain. She had a normal mammogram last week. She is not taking medications and has no known drug allergies.

Type
Chapter
Information
Surgical Gynecology
A Case-Based Approach
, pp. 171 - 173
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Practice Bulletin No. 182: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130: e110–26.Google Scholar
Friebel, TM, Domchek, SM, Rebbeck, TR. Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106: dju091. Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106: dju235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domchek, SM, Friebel, TM, Neuhausen, SL, et al. Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 223–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rebbeck, TR, Kauff, ND, Domchek, SM. Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 80–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 2010; 304: 967–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Eleje, GU, Eke, AC, Ezebialu, IU, et al. Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 8(8): CD012464. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012464.pub2.Google ScholarPubMed
Powel, CB, Kenley, E, Chen, LM, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carriers: role of serial sectioning in the detection of occult malignancy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 127–32.Google Scholar
Sherman, ME, Piedmonte, M, Mai, PL, et al. Pathologic findings at risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: primary results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Trial GOG-0199. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3275–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piedimonte, S, Frank, C, Laprise, C, Quaiattini, A, Gotlieb, WH. Occult tubal carcinoma after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135(3): 498508. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabban, JT, Mackey, A, Powell, CB, et al. Correlation of macroscopic and microscopic pathology in risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: implications for intraoperative specimen evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 121: 466–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×