Prophylactic Surgery: Oophorectomy or Adnexectomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article Tools SPECIAL DEPARTMENTS Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.19.3454 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print September 21, 2016 PMID: 11013293 Prophylactic Surgery: Oophorectomy or Adnexectomy? Suzette DelalogexSuzette DelalogeSearch for articles by this author , Philippe MoricexPhilippe MoriceSearch for articles by this author , Agnès ChompretxAgnès ChompretSearch for articles by this author , Catherine LhomméxCatherine LhomméSearch for articles by this author Andrea EisenxAndrea EisenSearch for articles by this author , Timothy R. RebbeckxTimothy R. RebbeckSearch for articles by this author , Barbara L. WeberxBarbara L. WeberSearch for articles by this author , William C. WoodxWilliam C. WoodSearch for articles by this author Show More Institut Gustave Roussy Villejuif, FranceMcMasterUniversity, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; University of Pennsylvania Health System Philadelphia, PA; Emory University, Atlanta, GA https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.19.3454 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2000 by American Society of Clinical OncologyjcoJ Clin OncolJournal of Clinical OncologyJCO0732-183X1527-7755American Society of Clinical OncologyResponse19102000In Reply:Drs Delaloge, Morice, Chompret, and Lhommé suggest that BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers should have their fallopian tubes removed at the time of prophylactic oophorectomy in order to prevent the development of fallopian tube carcinoma. For technical reasons, the fallopian tubes are routinely removed at the time of oophorectomy at our institutions. Although we agree that case reports have suggested an association between germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and fallopian tube carcinoma,1-5 this has not been confirmed in large series.6,71. Schubert EL, Lee MK, Mefford HC, et al: BRCA2 in American families with four or more cases of breast or ovarian cancer: Recurrent and novel mutations, variable expression, penetrance, and the possibility of families whose cancer is not attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2 [see comments]. Am J Hum Genet 60:: 1031,1997-1040, Medline, Google Scholar2. Rose PG, Shrigley R, Wiesner GL: Germline BRCA2 mutation in a patient with fallopian tube carcinoma: A case report. Gynecol Oncol 77:: 319,2000-320, Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Zweemer RP, van Diest PJ, Verheijen RH, et al: Molecular evidence linking primary cancer of the fallopian tube to BRCA1 germline mutations. Gynecol Oncol 76:: 45,2000-50, Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. Tong D, Stimpfl M, Reinthaller A, et al: BRCA1 gene mutations in sporadic ovarian carcinomas: Detection by PCR and reverse allele-specific oligonucleotide hybridization. Clin Chem 45:: 976,1999-981, Medline, Google Scholar5. Hartley A, Rollason T, Spooner D: Clear cell carcinoma of the fimbria of the fallopian tube in a BRCA1 carrier undergoing prophylactic surgery. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 12:: 58,2000-59, Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Ford D, Easton DF, Bishop DT, et al: Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers: Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Lancet 343:: 692,1994-695, Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium: Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Nat Cancer Inst 91:: 1310,1999-1316, Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.540 | 0.171 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".