Familial risk of epithelial ovarian cancer after accounting for gynaecological surgery: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of risk-reducing surgery has increased among women at high risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. We sought to characterise familial risk of epithelial ovarian cancer histotypes in a population-based study after accounting for gynaecological surgeries, including bilateral oophorectomy. METHODS: We compared risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in relatives of 3536 epithelial ovarian cancer cases diagnosed in 1966-2016 and relatives of 35 326 matched controls. We used Cox competing risk models, incorporating bilateral oophorectomy as a competing risk, to estimate the relative risk of ovarian cancer in first-degree (FDR), second-degree (SDR) and third-degree (TDR) relatives from 1966 to 2016. We also estimated relative risks in time periods before (1966-1994, 1995-2004) and after (2005-2016) formal recommendations were made for prophylactic oophorectomy among women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. RESULTS: The relative risks of epithelial ovarian cancer in FDRs, SDRs and TDRs of cases versus controls were 1.68 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.04), 1.51 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.75) and 1.34 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.48), respectively. Relative risks were greatest for high-grade serous, mucinous and 'other epithelial' histotypes. Relative risks were attenuated for case FDRs, but not for SDRs or TDRs, from 2005 onwards, consistent with the timing of recommendations for prophylactic surgery. CONCLUSION: Familial risk of epithelial ovarian cancer extends to TDRs, especially for high-grade serous and mucinous histotypes. Distant relatives share genes but minimal environment, highlighting the importance of germline inherited genetics in ovarian cancer aetiology. Increased ovarian cancer risk in distant relatives has implications for counselling and recommendations for prophylactic surgeries that, from our data, appear only to reach FDRs.

Digital Whole Slide Imaging Compared With Light Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology.

CONTEXT.­: The adoption of digital capture of pathology slides as whole slide images (WSI) for educational and research applications has proven utility. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare pathologists' primary diagnoses derived from WSI versus the standard microscope. Because WSIs differ in format and method of observation compared with the current standard glass slide microscopy, this study is critical to potential clinical adoption of digital pathology. DESIGN.­: The study enrolled a total of 2045 cases enriched for more difficult diagnostic categories and represented as 5849 slides were curated and provided for diagnosis by a team of 19 reading pathologists separately as WSI or as glass slides viewed by light microscope. Cases were reviewed by each pathologist in both modalities in randomized order with a minimum 31-day washout between modality reads for each case. Each diagnosis was compared with the original clinical reference diagnosis by an independent central adjudication review. RESULTS.­: The overall major discrepancy rates were 3.64% for WSI review and 3.20% for manual slide review diagnosis methods, a difference of 0.44% (95% CI, -0.15 to 1.03). The time to review a case averaged 5.20 minutes for WSI and 4.95 minutes for glass slides. There was no specific subset of diagnostic category that showed higher rates of modality-specific discrepancy, though some categories showed greater discrepancy than others in both modalities. CONCLUSIONS.­: WSIs are noninferior to traditional glass slides for primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology.