Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx: results of the OCASE nationwide population-based database study.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx at a young age on ovarian cancer risk compared to no salpingectomy for any reason? SUMMARY ANSWER: We found no significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Salpingectomy may reduce ovarian cancer incidence, although the lag-time between intervention and therapeutic effect remains to be elucidated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This nationwide population-based database study uses the Dutch pathology database to identify all women who underwent salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx between January 1990 and December 2012 and compared ovarian cancer incidence to a control group of women who had a benign dermal nevus removed, matched for age at the time and year of procedure. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: After selection and manual control of intervention and control group, ovarian cancer incidence was recorded. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI for the development of ovarian cancer were calculated with Cox regression analyses, both unadjusted and adjusted for age. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate lag-time between intervention and protective effect. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In all, 18 961 women were included in the intervention group; 17 106 women had a unilateral salpingectomy and 1855 had a bilateral salpingectomy. The control group consisted of 23 686 women. With 14 ovarian cancer cases in the intervention group, the incidence rate (IR) of ovarian cancer was 5.4 (95% CI 3.1-8.9) per 100 000 person-years. In the control group, there were 24 ovarian cancer cases, resulting in an IR of 7.1 (95% CI 4.7-10.5) per 100 000 person-years (P = 0.34). The age-adjusted HR for ovarian cancer was 0.76 (95% CI 0.39-1.47) after salpingectomy. Unilateral salpingectomy resulted in an age-adjusted HR of 0.81 (95% CI 0.41-1.59) and bilateral salpingectomy resulted in an age-adjusted HR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.06-3.16) based on one case. None of our subgroup analysis for lag-time resulted in a significant difference in ovarian cancer incidence between intervention and control group. The difference in ovarian cancer incidence appeared largest in women with at least 8 years of follow-up (P = 0.08). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the young population, ovarian cancer incidence is low, even at the end of follow-up. Furthermore, due to the anonymous nature of the pathology registry, we were unable to adjust for confounding factors. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although results did not reach statistical significance, they add to the available data on ovarian cancer incidence after salpingectomy. Our subgroup analysis suggests there may be no benefit in the first years following salpingectomy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy: Results from the HYSTUB randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether opportunistic salpingectomy in premenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications is both hormonally and surgically safe, compared with hysterectomy without salpingectomy. STUDY DESIGN: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, women were randomised to undergo either hysterectomy with opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (intervention group) or standard hysterectomy with preservation of the Fallopian tubes (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentration (ΔAMH), measured pre-surgery and 6 months post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes and duration of hospital stay. The sample size was powered at 50 participants per group (n=100) to compare ΔAMH after hysterectomy with salpingectomy to ΔAMH after standard hysterectomy. RESULTS: Between March 2013 and December 2016, 104 women, aged 30-55 years, were randomly allocated to hysterectomy with opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (n=52) or standard hysterectomy (n=52). The baseline characteristics did not differ between the two groups. The median ΔAMH was -0.14pmol/L (IQR -1.47-0.95) in the intervention group and 0.00pmol/L (IQR -1.05-0.80) in the control group (p=0.49). The addition of salpingectomy did not impair surgical results and it did not affect duration of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Addition of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy during hysterectomy did not result in a larger effect on ovarian reserve when compared with hysterectomy alone, neither did it affect surgical outcomes. Therefore, opportunistic salpingectomy seems to be a safe procedure in premenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions.