Prophylactic salpingo‐oophorectomy in a series of 89 women carrying a <i>BRCA1</i> or a <i>BRCA2</i> mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (SO), which is recommended in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, still needs to be reappraised. METHODS: In all, 89 BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers underwent SO between 1994-2004. Past medical and familial history, SO, results and survival after SO were analyzed. RESULTS: The series consisted of 56 BRCA1 and 33 BRCA2 mutation carriers. All but 1 had a family history of breast (BC) and/or ovarian cancer; 42 BRCA1 and 31 BRCA2 had a personal history of BC. The median age at SO was 44 (BRCA1) and 49.5 (BRCA2) years for women without previous BC (not significant) and 48 (BRCA1) and 53 BRCA2) years (P=.03) for women with previous BC. Occult ovarian (n=2) and/or fallopian (n=3) carcinomas were found in 4 patients (4.5%): 1 experienced recurrence (4 years), 2 are disease-free (26 and 38 months of follow-up), and 1 died from BC (12 months). Among the other 69 patients with previous BC (median follow-up, 42 months), 14 developed ipsilateral or contralateral BC and 8 developed metastatic disease. Among the 16 patients without previous BC (median follow-up, 27 months), 3 developed BC. Of the 89 patients, 85 are still alive: 3 died from BC and 1 died from pancreatic cancer. No peritoneal malignancy was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that prophylactic SO remains an important option for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers as asymptomatic ovarian/fallopian cancers were found in 4.5% of patients. However, a longer follow-up and larger series are required to more precisely evaluate the benefits of this procedure in terms of BC incidence, peritoneal malignancy, or recurrence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".