MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Salpingectomy and the Risk of Ovarian Cancer in Ontario

2023· article· en· W4385752321 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vasily Giannakeas, Ally Murji, Lorraine L. Lipscombe, Steven A. Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen's College HospitalOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineSalpingectomyTubal ligationFallopian tubeOvarian cancerGynecologyHysterectomyHazard ratioObstetricsPopulationProportional hazards modelSurgeryFamily planningCancerPregnancyEctopic pregnancyInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: A body of pathological and clinical evidence supports the position that the fallopian tube is the site of origin for a large proportion of high-grade serous ovarian cancers. Consequently, salpingectomy is now considered for permanent contraception (in lieu of tubal ligation) or ovarian cancer prevention (performed opportunistically at the time of surgical procedures for benign gynecologic conditions). Objective: To evaluate the association between salpingectomy and the risk of invasive epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included all women aged 18 to 80 years who were eligible for health care services in Ontario, Canada. Participants were identified using administrative health databases from Ontario between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2019. A total of 131 516 women were included in the primary (matched) analysis. Women were followed up until December 31, 2021. Exposures: Salpingectomy (with and without hysterectomy) vs no pelvic procedure (control condition) among women in the general population. Main Outcomes and Measures: Women with a unilateral or bilateral salpingectomy in Ontario between April 1, 1992, and December 31, 2019, were matched 1:3 to women with no pelvic procedure from the general population. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer combined. Results: Among 131 516 women (mean [SD] age, 42.2 [7.6] years), 32 879 underwent a unilateral or bilateral salpingectomy, and 98 637 did not undergo a pelvic procedure. After a mean (range) follow-up of 7.4 (0-29.2) years in the salpingectomy group and 7.5 (0-29.2) years in the nonsurgical control group, there were 31 incident cancers (0.09%) and 117 incident cancers (0.12%), respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.55-1.21). The HR for cancer incidence was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.53-1.44) when comparing those with salpingectomy vs those with hysterectomy alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, no association was found between salpingectomy and the risk of ovarian cancer; however, this observation was based on few incident cases and a relatively short follow-up time. Studies with additional years of follow-up are necessary to define the true level of potential risk reduction with salpingectomy, although longer follow-up will also be a challenge unless collaborative efforts that pool data are undertaken.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207