Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention

Gynecologic Oncology

Volumn 146, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 373-379

  Dilley, Sarah E ^a,e   Havrilesky, Laura J ^b   Bakkum Gamez, Jamie ^c   Cohn, David E ^d   Michael Straughn, J ^e   Caughey, Aaron B ^f   Rodriguez, Maria I ^a  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^f OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Ovarian cancer; Salpingectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER RISK; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRACEPTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LOW RISK PATIENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MIDDLE AGED; MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OVARIAN PRESERVATION; OVARY CANCER; PELVIS SURGERY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RISK REDUCTION; SALPINGECTOMY; TREATMENT INDICATION; UNPLANNED PREGNANCY; UTERINE TUBE LIGATION; CANCER REGISTRY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC MODEL; ECONOMICS; LAPAROSCOPY; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; PROPHYLACTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; UTERINE DISEASES; UTERINE TUBE STERILIZATION;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPHYLACTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SALPINGECTOMY; SEER PROGRAM; STERILIZATION, TUBAL; UTERINE DISEASES;

EID: 85020095062     PISSN: 00908258     EISSN: 10956859     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.05.034     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2013. 2016: based on November 2015 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 6.
2. Jacobs, I.J., Menon, U., Ryan, A., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Burnell, M., Kalsi, J.K., et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387 (2016), 945–956.
3. Walker, J.L., Powell, C.B., L-m, Chen, Carter, J., Bae Jump, V.L., Parker, L.P., et al. Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the prevention of ovarian cancer. Cancer 121 (2015), 2108–2120.
4. Kindelberger, D., Lee, Y., Miron, A., Hirsch, M., Feltmate, C., Medeiros, F., Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 31 (2007), 161–169.
5. Przybycin, C.G., Kurman, R.J., Ronnett, B.M., Shih Ie, M., Vang, R., Are all pelvic (nonuterine) serous carcinomas of tubal origin?. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 34 (2010), 1407–1416.
6. Kurman, R.J., Shih, Ie M., The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 34 (2010), 433–443.
7. Falconer, H., Yin, L., Gronberg, H., Altman, D., Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 107, 2015.
8. Lessard-Anderson, C., Handlogten, K., Molitor, R., Dowdy, S., Cliby, W., Weaver, A., et al. Effect of tubal sterilization technique on risk of serous ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 135 (2014), 423–427.
9. Madsen, C., Baandrup, L., Dehlendroff, C., Kjaer, S.K., Tubal ligation and salpingectomy and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumors: a nationwide case–control study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 94 (2015), 86–94.
10. Rice, M.S., Murphy, M.A., Tworoger, S.S., Tubal ligation, hysterectomy and ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. J. Ovarian Res., 5, 2012, 13.
11. Sieh, W., Salvador, S., McGuire, V., Weber, R.P., Terry, K.L., Rossing, M.A., et al. Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer subtypes: a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 42 (2013), 579–589.
12. Committee opinion no. 620: salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet. Gynecol., 125, 2015, 279–281.
13. Gilks, C.B., Miller, D., Opportunistic salpingectomy for women at low risk for development of ovarian carcinoma: the time has come. Gynecol. Oncol. 129 (2013), 443–444.
14. Garcia, C., Martin, M., Tucker, L.-Y., Lyon, L., Armstrong, M.A., McBride-Allen, S., et al. Experience with opportunistic salpingectomy in a large, community-based health system in the United States. Obstet. Gynecol. 128 (2016), 277–283.
15. Herzog, T.J., Dinkelspiel, H.E., Fallopian tube removal: “stic-ing” it to ovarian cancer: what is the utility of prophylactic tubal removal?. Curr. Oncol. 20 (2013), 148–151.
16. Manchanda, R., Menon, U., Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS) for the prevention of ovarian cancer should be offered in the context of a clinical trial. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 123, 2016, 463.
17. McAlpine, J.N., Hanley, G.E., Woo, M.M., Tone, A.A., Rozenberg, N., Swenerton, K.D., et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 210:471 (2014), e1–11.
18. Morelli, M., Venturella, R., Mocciaro, R., Di Cello, A., Rania, E., Lico, D., et al. Prophylactic salpingectomy in premenopausal low-risk women for ovarian cancer: primum non nocere. Gynecol. Oncol. 129 (2013), 448–451.
19. Ye, X., Yang, Y., Sun, X., A retrospective analysis of the effect of salpingectomy on serum antiMullerian hormone level and ovarian reserve. AJOG, 53, 2015.
20. Schorge, J.O., Modesitt, S.C., Coleman, R.L., Cohn, D.E., Kauff, N.D., Duska, L.R., et al. SGO white paper on ovarian cancer: etiology, screening and surveillance. Gynecol. Oncol. 119 (2010), 7–17.
21. Yabroff, K.R., Lamont, E.B., Mariotto, A., Warren, J.L., Topor, M., Meekins, A., et al. Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 100 (2008), 630–641.
22. Chan, L.M., Westhoff, C.L., Tubal sterilization trends in the United States. Fertil. Steril. 94 (2010), 1–6.
23. Wright, J.D., Herzog, T.J., Tsui, J., Ananth, C.V., Lewin, S.N., Lu, Y.-S., et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet. Gynecol. 122 (2013), 233–241.
24. Shiroiwa, T., Sung, Y.-K., Fukuda, T., Lang, H.-C., Bae, S.-C., Tsutani, K., International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness?. Health Econ. 19 (2010), 422–437.
25. Cohen, S.L., Vitonis, A.F., Einarsson, J.I., Updated hysterectomy surveillance and factors associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy. JSLS, 18, 2014 (e2014.00096).
26. Daniels, K., Daugherty, J., Jones, J., Current contraceptive status among women aged 15–44: United States, 2011–2013. NCHS Data Brief, No 173, 2014, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.
27. Patzkowsky, K.E., As-Sanie, S., Smorgick, N., Song, A.H., Advincula, A.P., Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. JSLS 17 (2013), 100–106.
28. Jamieson, D.J., Hillis, S.D., Duerr, A., Marchbanks, P.A., Costello, C., Peterson, H.B., Complications of interval laparoscopic tubal sterilization: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet. Gynecol. 96 (2000), 997–1002.
29. Hanley, G.E., McAlpine, J.N., Pearce, C.L., Miller, D., The performance and safety of bilateral salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 216 (2016), 270.e1–270.e9.
30. Minig, L., Chuang, L., Patrono, M.G., Cárdenas-Rebollo, J.M., García-Donas, J., Surgical outcomes and complications of prophylactic salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in premenopausal women. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 22 (2015), 653–657.
31. Vorwergk, J., Radosa, M.P., Nicolaus, K., Baus, N., Jimenez Cruz, J., Rengsberger, M., et al. Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy (PBS) to reduce ovarian cancer risk incorporated in standard premenopausal hysterectomy: complications and re-operation rate. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 140 (2014), 859–865.
32. Peterson, H.B., Xia, Z., Hughes, J.M., Wilcox, L.S., Tylor, L.R., Trussell, J., The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 174 (1996), 1161–1168 (discussion 8-70).
33. Peterson, H.B., Xia, Z., Hughes, J.M., Wilcox, L.S., Tylor, L.R., Trussell, J., The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 336 (1997), 762–767.
34. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, Health Care Cost and Utilization Project. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/data/hcup/index.html (accessed October 26, 2016).
35. Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool. https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule (accessed October 26, 2016).
36. Dimick, J.B., Chen, S.L., Taheri, P.A., Henderson, W.G., Khuri, S.F., Campbell, D.A. Jr., Hospital costs associated with surgical complications: a report from the private-sector National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 199 (2004), 531–537.
37. Amaral, G., Foster, D.G., Biggs, M.A., Jasik, C.B., Judd, S., Brindis, C.D., Public savings from the prevention of unintended pregnancy: a cost analysis of family planning services in California. Health Serv. Res. 42 (2007), 1960–1980.
38. United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI inflation calculator. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (accessed October 26, 2016).
39. Bass, E.B., Pitt, H.A., Lillemoe, K.D., Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy. Am. J. Surg. 165 (1993), 466–471 (NIH Consensus Conference on Gallstones and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy).
40. Meltzer, A.C., Ward, M.J., Gralnek, I.M., Pines, J.M., The cost-effectiveness analysis of video capsule endoscopy compared to other strategies to manage acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the ED. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 32 (2014), 823–832.
41. Havrilesky, L.J., Broadwater, G., Davis, D.M., Nolte, K.C., Barnett, J.C., Myers, E.R., et al. Determination of quality of life-related utilities for health states relevant to ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment. Gynecol. Oncol. 113 (2009), 216–220.
42. Ubel, P.A., Hirth, R.A., Chernew, M.E., What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation?. Arch. Intern. Med. 163 (2003), 1637–1641.
43. Kwon, J.S., McAlpine, J.N., Hanley, G.E., Finlayson, S.J., Cohen, T., Miller, D.M., et al. Costs and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Obstet. Gynecol. 125 (2015), 338–345.
44. Kwon, J.S., Tinker, A., Pansegrau, G., McAlpine, J., Housty, M., McCullum, M., et al. Prophylactic salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy as an alternative for BRCA mutation carriers. Obstet. Gynecol. 121 (2013), 14–24.
45. Holman, L.L., Friedman, S., Daniels, M.S., Sun, C.C., Lu, K.H., Acceptability of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy as risk-reducing surgery among BRCA mutation carriers. Gynecol. Oncol. 133 (2014), 283–286.
46. Schwarz, E.B., Smith, R., Steinauer, J., Reeves, M.F., Caughey, A.B., Measuring the effects of unintended pregnancy on women's quality of life. Contraception 78 (2008), 204–210.