Adherence to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy guidelines among gynecologic oncologists compared to general...

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy reduces mortality from high-grade serous carcinoma in patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer associated gene mutations. Ideal surgical management includes 5 steps outlined in 2005 by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In addition, it is recommended that pathologic examination include serial sectioning of specimens. In practice, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is performed by both gynecologic oncologists and general gynecologists. To ensure optimal detection of occult malignancy, standardized adherence to outlined guidelines is necessary.

This study aimed to evaluate the adherence to optimal surgical and pathologic examination guidelines and to compare the rate of occult malignancy at the time of surgery between 2 provider types.

Institutional review board exemption was obtained. A retrospective review of patients undergoing risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy without hysterectomy from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, at 3 sites within a healthcare system was conducted. The inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years and a documented indication for surgery being a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 or a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Compliance with 5 surgical steps and pathologic specimen preparation was based on medical record documentation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine differences in adherence between provider groups and surgical and pathologic examination guidelines. A P value of <.025 was considered statistically significant for the 2 primary outcomes after Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons.

A total of 185 patients were included. Among the 96 cases performed by gynecologic oncologists, 69 (72%) performed all 5 steps of surgery, 22 (23%) performed 4 steps, 5 (5%) performed 3 steps, and none performed 1 or 2 steps. Among the 89 cases performed by general gynecologists, 4 (5%) performed all 5 steps, 33 (37%) performed 4 steps, 38 (43%) performed 3 steps, 13 (15%) performed 2 steps, and 1 (1%) performed 1 step. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to document adherence to all 5 recommended surgical steps in their surgical dictation (odds ratio, 54.3; 95% confidence interval, 18.1-162.7; P<.0001). Among the 96 cases documented by gynecologic oncologists, 41 (43%) had serial sectioning of all specimens performed, compared with 23 of 89 cases (26%) performed by general gynecologists. No difference in adherence to pathologic guidelines was identified between the 2 provider groups (P=.0489; note: P value of >.025). Overall, 5 patients (2.70%) had occult malignancy diagnosed at the time of risk-reducing surgery, with all surgeries performed by general gynecologists.

Our results demonstrated greater compliance with surgical guidelines for risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in gynecologic oncologists than in general gynecologists. No considerable difference was determined between the 2 provider types in adherence to pathologic guidelines. Our findings demonstrated a need for institution-wide protocol education and implementation of standardized nomenclature to ensure provider adherence to evidence-based guidelines.