Objectives: Women at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer (OC) are recommended to have risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) after completion of reproductive planning. Effective screening has not been established, and novel screening modalities are being evaluated.
Methods: Participants chose either RRSO or a novel OC screening regimen (OCS) as their risk management option, and provided demographic and other data on BRCA mutation status, cancer worry, perceived intervention risks/benefits, perceived cancer risk, and quality-of-life at enrollment. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to evaluate factors influencing decision between RRSO and OCS.
Results: Of 2287 participants enrolled, 904 (40%) chose RRSO and 1383 (60%) chose OCS. Compared with participants choosing OCS, participants choosing RRSO were older (p<0.0001), more likely to carry deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations (p<0.0001), perceive RRSO as effective, be more concerned about surgical harms and OCS limitations, and report higher perceived OC risk and OC-related worry. OCS participants were more likely to perceive screening as effective, be more concerned about menopausal symptoms, infertility, and loss of femininity, and report better overall quality-of-life. Twenty-four percent of participants believed they would definitely develop OC, and half estimated their lifetime OC risk as >50%, both higher than objective risk estimates.
Conclusions: Cancer worry, BRCA1/2 mutation status, and perceived intervention-related risks and benefits were associated with choosing between RRSO and OCS. Efforts to promote individualized, evidence-based, shared medical decision-making among high-risk women facing management choices should focus on conveying accurate OC risk estimates, clarifying the current understanding of intervention-related benefits and limitations, and addressing OC worry.
Published by Elsevier Inc.