Diederik M Somford

Ovarian cancer risk reduction by salpingectomy during non-gynaecological surgery: scoping review

Abstract Background Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among gynaecological cancers. The identification of the fallopian tube epithelium as the origin of most ovarian cancers introduces a novel prevention strategy by removing the fallopian tubes during an already indicated abdominal surgery for another reason, also known as an opportunistic salpingectomy. This preventive opportunity is evidence based, recommended and established at the time of gynaecologic surgery in many countries worldwide. To expand interest among surgeons in performing a salpingectomy during non-gynaecological surgery, the aim of this review is to identify knowledge gaps during those surgeries. Methods A scoping review was performed following the PRISMA-Scoping Review (ScR) checklist. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to November 2024. Trial registers were searched for ongoing trials. All studies reporting original data on salpingectomy during non-gynaecological surgery were included. Outcomes were provided narratively. Results Eighteen studies were identified reporting on the implementation, surgical feasibility, patients’ perspectives, physicians’ knowledge and cost-effectiveness of an opportunistic salpingectomy during non-gynaecological surgery. Population-level data indicate that an opportunistic salpingectomy is rarely performed in non-gynaecological surgeries. High success rates and no complications of an opportunistic salpingectomy were observed during bariatric surgery and cholecystectomies. However, performing an additional salpingectomy appeared more time-consuming. Patients had strong interest in information on and willingness to undergo opportunistic salpingectomy. Cost-effectiveness analysis encourages opportunistic salpingectomy use, as models show reduced ovarian cancer incidence and mortality rate while being cost-effective. Conclusions Opportunistic salpingectomy during non-gynaecologic surgery appears to be a promising method to prevent ovarian cancer. Implementing such a strategy will require education of multiple surgical disciplines, training and resolution of organizational issues.

Opportunistic Salpingectomy in Non‐Gynecologic Surgeries: Barriers and Facilitators From a Healthcare Provider Perspective

ABSTRACT Objective This study identifies barriers and facilitators for implementing opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) during non‐gynecological abdominal surgeries from a healthcare provider perspective. Methods From October 2023 to July 2024, a mixed‐method study was conducted. The qualitative phase involved semi‐structured focus group interviews and individual interviews with specialists in surgery (gynecologists, general surgeons, urologists, and residents) and policymakers to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing OS during non‐gynecological surgery. The quantitative phase consisted of a cross‐sectional web‐based survey assessing the importance of these barriers and facilitators. The study utilized the standardized implementation frameworks to categorize the factors into six domains: innovation, patient, healthcare professional, social setting, organization, and economic and financial context. Results In the qualitative phase, 38 healthcare professionals and policymakers identified 38 barriers and 28 facilitators. Barriers were found in all domains and mainly included increased workload, unclear invoicing, and variations in eligible surgeries. Facilitators included the poor prognosis of ovarian cancer, simplicity of OS, and availability of counseling materials. The quantitative survey revealed that 75% of gynecologists, 60% of surgeons, and 61% of urologists supported offering OS during non‐gynecological abdominal surgeries. Barriers identified included the ambiguity regarding which patients are eligible for OS, the perceived complication risks of OS, the increased workload as a result of adding OS, and the unclarity around invoicing an OS. Facilitators included the poor prognosis of ovarian cancer, the availability of uniform counseling materials, education on counseling and technical performance of OS, involvement of a gynecologist during the counseling, and clear agreements between the departments within hospitals. Conclusions Key barriers to OS implementation in non‐gynecological surgeries include unclear invoicing and increased workload, while significant facilitators are the availability of counseling materials and education on counseling and technical performance of OS. Addressing these barriers and leveraging facilitators could enhance OS adoption, potentially reducing ovarian cancer incidence.