Abstract
Women at high risk of familial ovarian cancer face a potentially difficult risk management choice between unproven ovarian cancer screening (OCS) and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). It is not fully understood why women who initially opt for OCS may later undergo BSO, nor what the impact of this may be. This study explored the catalysts for surgery and reactions to discontinuing OCS. Semi-structured interviews were completed with 21 women who had undergone surgery having initially chosen OCS to explore their screening experiences, reasons for and feelings about surgery, and reactions to discontinuing OCS. The invasive nature and frequency of OCS were not by themselves a catalyst for surgery. A number of catalysts, including abnormal OCS test results, and secondary considerations, such as age-related factors, were found to prompt surgery. The emotional impact of discontinuing OCS following BSO varied between relief, acceptance, and loss of reassurance. OCS appears to be an acceptable risk management strategy under certain circumstances, but varying factors can prompt the decision to opt instead for BSO. The complexity of this management change decision should not be underestimated and needs to be taken into account by clinicians assisting women making choices. These findings highlight the importance of the timing of decision-making about BSO and that risk management options need routine reconsideration, through clinical discussions, information and support.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cancer research UK (2012) www.cancerresearchuk.org. Accessed 24 January 2012
Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM (2009) Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:80–87
Evans DG, Clayton R, Donnai P, Shenton A, Lalloo F (2009) Risk-reducing surgery for ovarian cancer: outcomes in 300 surgeries suggest a low peritoneal primary risk. Eur J Hum Genet 17:1381–1385
Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J et al (2006) Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. JAMA 296:185–192
Howard AF, Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL (2009) Women’s decision making about risk-reducing strategies in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. J Genet Couns 18:578–597
Miller SM, Rousis P, Daly MB, Scarpato J (2010) New strategies in ovarian cancer: uptake and experience of women at high risk of ovarian cancer who are considering risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Clin Cancer Res 16:5094–5106
Antill Y, Reynolds J, Young M et al (2006) Risk-reducing surgery in women with familial susceptibility for breast and/or ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 42:621–628
Bradbury A, Ibe CN, Dignam JJ et al (2008) Uptake and timing of bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Genet Med 10:161–166
Hallowell N, Jacobs I, Richards M, Mackay J, Gore M (2001) Surveillance or surgery? A description of the factors that influence high risk menopausal women’s decisions about prophylactic oophorectomy. J Med Gen 38:683–726
Lifford KJ, Fraser L, Rosenthal AN et al (2012) Withdrawal from familial ovarian cancer screening for surgery: findings from a psychological evaluation study (PsyFOCS). Gynecol Oncol 124:158–163
Ray JA, Loescher LJ, Brewer M (2005) Risk-reduction surgery decisions in high-risk women seen for genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 14:473–848
Fry A, Rush R, Busby-Earle C, Cull A (2001) Deciding about prophylactic oophorectomy: what is important to women at increased risk of ovarian cancer? Prev Med 33:578–585
Hamilton R, Williams JK, Bowers BJ et al (2009) Life trajectories, genetic testing, and risk reduction decisions in 18–39 year old women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Counsel 18:147–159
Hurley KE, Miller SM, Costalas JW et al (2001) Anxiety/uncertainty reduction as a motivation for interest in prophylactic oophorectomy in women with a family history of ovarian cancer. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 10:189–199
Meiser B, Butow P, Barratt A et al (1999) Attitudes toward prophylactic oophorectomy and screening utilization in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 75:122–129
Lancastle D, Brain K, Phelps C. on behalf the PsyFOCS study management group (2011) Illness representations and distress in women undergoing screening for familial ovarian cancer. Psychol Health 26:1659–1677
Ritchie J, Spencer L (2002) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Huberman AM, Miles MB (eds) The qualitative researcher’s companion. Sage Publications, London, pp 305–329
NVivo 8 (2008) NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd
Evans DG, Lalloo F, Ashcroft L et al (2009) Uptake of risk-reducing surgery in unaffected women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer is risk, age and time dependent. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18:2318–2324
Hallowell N, Lawton J (2002) Negotiation present and future selves: managing the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer by prophylactic surgery. Health 6:423–433
Howard AF, Bottorff JL, Balneaves LG et al (2010) Women’s constructions of the ‘right time’ to consider decisions about risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing oophorectomy. BMC Women’s Health 10:24
Manchanda R, Burnell M, Abdelraheim A et al (2012) Factors influencing uptake and timing of risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women at risk of familial ovarian cancer: a competing risk time to event analysis. BJOG 119:527–536
Brain K, Gravell C, France E et al (2004) An exploratory qualitative study of women’s perceptions of risk management options for familial ovarian cancer: implications for informed decision making. Gynecol Oncol 92:905–913
Babb SA, Swisher AM, Heller HN et al (2002) Qualitative evaluation of medical information processing needs of 60 women choosing ovarian cancer surveillance or prophylactic oophorectomy. J Genet Couns 11:81–96
Hallowell N (2000) A qualitative study of the information needs of high-risk women undergoing prophylactic oophorectomy. Psycho-oncology 9:486–495
Acknowledgments
A major portion of this work was done at UCLH/UCL within the ‘Women’s Health Theme’ of the NIHR UCLH/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre supported by the UK Department of Health. We would like to acknowledge the late Joan Austoker who contributed to the study as a member of the PsyFOCS management group. We would like to thank the following for their administrative assistance: Philip Badman, Lesley Hague, Kathryn Harris, Lisa Hinton, Liza James, Tracy Pearmain, Sue Philpott and Andy Ryan. We would also like to thank the participants as well as the PsyFOCS collaborating centres: Cambridge (Addenbrooke’s Hospital), Cardiff (University Hospital of Wales), Glasgow (Yorkhill Hospital), Leeds (St. James’s University Hospital), London UCLH (Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital) and Swansea (Singleton Hospital). The PsyFOCS study is funded by the BUPA Foundation.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was granted from the Eastern Multi Centre Research Ethics Committee (reference: 97/5/007).
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Kate J. Lifford and Alison Clements: joint first authors.
On behalf of the PsyFOCS management group: Kate Brain (PI), Mark T. Rogers, Rachel Iredale (School of Medicine, Cardiff University, UK), Alison Clements (Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK), Lindsay Fraser, Usha Menon (Department of Women’s Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, London, UK), Ian Jacobs (Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, UK), Deborah Lancastle (School of Psychology, University of Glamorgan, UK), Ceri Phelps (School of Psychology & Counselling, Swansea Metropolitan University, UK), Adam N. Rosenthal (Barts Cancer Institute, CR-UK Centre of Excellence, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, UK), Eila K. Watson (Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, UK), Louise Bayne (Ovacome).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lifford, K.J., Clements, A., Fraser, L. et al. Catalysts to withdrawal from familial ovarian cancer screening for surgery and reactions to discontinued screening: a qualitative study. Familial Cancer 12, 19–26 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-012-9567-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-012-9567-x