The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of ovarian cancer mortality in women with BRCA1 mutations undergoing annual ultrasound screening or preventive oophorectomy
Abstract
Objective To compare the survival experience of women with a BRCA1 mutation who enrolled in an ovarian cancer screening program with that of women who opted for preventive oophorectomy. Methods We followed 1964 women with a BRCA1 mutation and two ovaries intact in a prospective study. No women had ovarian cancer or had a bilateral oophorectomy prior to study initiation. There were 1814 women in the cohort who had at least one screening ultrasound. They were followed from the date of first ultrasound until the date of preventive oophorectomy, death or last follow-up. There were 659 women in the cohort who had preventive oophorectomy. They were followed from the date of preventive oophorectomy until death or last follow-up. Results Among the 1196 women who had one or more ultrasound examinations and no oophorectomy, there were 73 incident cancers detected and 27 deaths from ovarian/fallopian cancer. The ten year cumulative risk of death was 2.0%. Among the 659 women who had a preventive oophorectomy there were 12 incident cancers (9 detected at oophorectomy and 3 in the follow up period) and two deaths from ovarian cancer. The ten year cumulative risk of death was 0.5%. The hazard ratio for oophorectomy versus ultrasound was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.97; p = 0.05). Conclusion The survival of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer enrolled in an ultrasound screening program is relatively poor and screening is not a viable alternative to preventive oophorectomy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a Polish study of 1,814 women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and intact ovaries, the HR for oophorectomy versus screening ultrasound for ovarian/fallopian cancer was 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-0.97; P = 0.05).
“The HR for oophorectomy versus screening ultrasound was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.05 - 0.97; P = 0.05).”
From Screening, Risk Reduction Strategies, and Clinical Management of Unaffected Carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants (2026) · cites this paper as [43]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Kotsopoulos, 2018, Hereditary ovarian cancer clinical study group. Age-specific ovarian cancer risks among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, Gynecol. Oncol., 150, 85, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.05.011 · DOI
- Finch, 2006, Hereditary ovarian cancer clinical study group. Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, JAMA, 296, 185, 10.1001/jama.296.2.185 · DOI
- Menkiszak, 2003, Hereditary ovarian cancer in Poland, Int. J. Cancer, 106, 942, 10.1002/ijc.11338 · DOI
- Rosenthal, 2017, United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study collaborators. Evidence of stage shift in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during phase II of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study, J. Clin. Oncol., 35, 1411, 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.9330 · DOI
- Skates, 2017, Early detection of ovarian cancer using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm with frequent CA125 testing in women at increased familial risk - combined results from two screening trials, Clin. Cancer Res., 23, 3628, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2750 · DOI
- Narod, 2016, Can advanced-stage ovarian cancer be cured?, Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol., 13, 255, 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.224 · DOI
- Rosen, 2014, The impacts of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and of debulking surgery on survival from advanced ovarian cancer, Gynecol. Oncol., 134, 462, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.07.004 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abdel-Razeq, H., & Mansour, R. (2026) · World Journal of Oncology · doi:10.14740/wjon2692
Metadata
- Authors
- Gronwald, J., Lubinski, J., Huzarski, T., Cybulski, C., Menkiszak, J., Siołek, M., Stawicka, M., Sun, P., Kim, S. J., Kotsopoulos, J., & Narod, S. A.
- Affiliations
- International Hereditary Cancer Center (PL)
- Pomeranian Medical University (PL)
- University of Zielona Góra (PL)
- Women's College Hospital (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Narod, Steven A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Gynecologic Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-11
- Volume
- 155
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 270-274
- ISSN
- 0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2971357163
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Gynecologic Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canada Research Chair
- Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (703058)
- Peter Gilgan Foundation Tour de Bleu
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- ovarian cancer, BRCA1 mutation, ovarian cancer screening, transvaginal ultrasound, mortality, survival, fallopian tube cancer, hereditary cancer predisposition
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Female, Heterozygote, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Mutation, Ovarian Neoplasms, Ovariectomy, Poland, Prospective Studies, Ultrasonography, Genes, BRCA1, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review