Search

Background: Opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy or as an alternative to bilateral tubal ligation may reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer, because it has been demonstrated that most serous ovarian cancers begin in the fallopian tubes. However, salpingectomy at the time of sterilization is not always financially covered by third-party payers, and this represents a barrier to adoption. Routine salpingectomy has become more common but is not always practiced at the time of hysterectomy., Objective: This study aimed to determine the impact of opportunistic salpingectomy as an alternative tubal ligation and routine salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy on ovarian cancer mortality and overall cost., Study Design: An 8-state Markov state transition model was constructed, including hysterectomy, tubal ligation, and ovarian cancer. Transition probabilities were informed by previously reported population data and include age-adjusted rates of elective sterilization and hysterectomy. This model was used to predict ovarian cancer incidence and the cost effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy. Testing of this model suggested that it accurately predicted overall life expectancy and closely predicted the rate of hysterectomy in the population. The model may underestimate the rate of tubal sterilization, making it conservative with respect to the benefits of salpingectomy., Results: The recursive Markov model was run from ages 20 to 85 years in 1-year intervals with a half step correction and included age-adjusted rates of tubal ligation, hysterectomy (with and without oophorectomy), and ovarian cancer. The model predicts that opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of tubal ligation will reduce ovarian cancer mortality by 8.13%. Opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy will reduce ovarian cancer mortality by 6.34% for a combined decrease of 14.5%. Both strategies are cost effective when considering only the cost of the opportunistic salpingectomy. The excess cost of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of tubal ligation was $433.91 with an incremental cost-effective ratio of $6401 per life-year and $5469 per quality-adjusted life year gained when adjusting for ovarian cancer with a utility of 0.64. The incremental cost-effective ratio for opportunistic salpingectomy during hysterectomy at a cost of $124.70 was $2006 per life-year and $1667 per quality-adjusted life year. When considering the impact of ovarian cancer prevention with respect to the cost of ovarian cancer treatment, opportunistic salpingectomy may produce a substantial healthcare savings. Utilizing a 3% discount rate, it is estimated that the total savings for universal salpingectomy could be as high as $445 million annually in the United States. A sensitivity analysis around the benefit of opportunistic salpingectomy suggests that this procedure will be cost effective even if salpingectomy provides only a modest reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer., Conclusion: It is estimated that universal opportunistic salpingectomy may prevent 1854 deaths per year from ovarian cancer and may reduce healthcare costs. Given these data, universal opportunistic salpingectomy should be considered at the time of tubal ligation and hysterectomy and covered by third-party payers., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is increasing adoption of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention at the time of gynecologic surgery, which includes the postpartum period. However, there is no consensus on an ideal surgical approach for the parturient vasculature. We describe a safe, low-cost, and accessible approach for bilateral salpingectomy during cesarean delivery that we call the "Mesosalpinx Isolation Salpingectomy Technique" (MIST) that can guide institutions to standardize their postpartum salpingectomy procedures when advanced vessel-sealing devices are not available. In the MIST technique, avascular windows are created within the mesosalpinx close to the tubal vessels. The vasculature is thus fully skeletonized and isolated from the adjacent mesosalpinx before suture ligation, which ensures security of the free-tie to the individual vessels and avoids sharp injury to the mesosalpinx. Not using vessel-sealing devices also eliminates the risk of thermal injury to the adjacent ovarian tissue and vasculature and potentially achieves a cost-savings for the hospital and patient. MIST has been performed in 141 cesarean deliveries in the past 4 years. There were no noted bleeding complications during the salpingectomy procedure, blood transfusions, or instances of postoperative surgical reexploration. In our experience, a surgeon who is new to the procedure takes approximately 15 minutes to complete a bilateral salpingectomy. Those surgeons who are experienced in MIST need only 5 minutes. A video is included that demonstrates the technique., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Removal of the fallopian tubes at the time of hysterectomy or interval sterilization has become routine practice to prevent ovarian cancer. While emerging as a strategy, uptake of this procedure at the time of cesarean delivery for pregnant women seeking permanent sterilization has not been widely adopted due to perceptions of increased morbidity and operative difficulty with a lack of available data in this setting., Objective: We sought to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing strategies for long-term sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction at the time of cesarean delivery, including bilateral tubal ligation, opportunistic salpingectomy, and long-acting reversible contraception., Study Design: A decision-analytic and cost-effectiveness model was constructed for pregnant women undergoing cesarean delivery who desired permanent sterilization in the US population, comparing 3 strategies: (1) bilateral tubal ligation, (2) bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy, and (3) postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. This theoretic cohort consisted of 110,000 pregnant women desiring permanent sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery and ovarian cancer prevention at an average of 35 years who were monitored for an additional 40 years based on an average US female life expectancy of 75 years. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes included: the number of ovarian cancer cases and deaths, procedure-related complications, and unintended and ectopic pregnancies. The 1-, 2-, and 3-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000., Results: Both bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery have favorable cost-effectiveness ratios. In the base case analysis, salpingectomy was more cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,189 per quality-adjusted life year compared to tubal ligation. Long-acting reversible contraception after cesarean was not cost-effective (ie, dominated). Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation were both cost-effective over a wide range of cost and risk estimates, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis was highly sensitive to the uncertainty around the estimates of salpingectomy cancer risk reduction, risk of perioperative complications, and cost. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated that tubal ligation had a 49% chance of being the preferred strategy over salpingectomy. If the true salpingectomy risk of perioperative complications is >2% higher than tubal ligation or if the cancer risk reduction of salpingectomy is <52%, then tubal ligation is the preferred, more cost-effective strategy., Conclusion: Bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery are both cost-effective strategies for permanent sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction. Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation are both reasonable strategies for cesarean patients seeking permanent sterilization and cancer risk reduction, threshold analyses indicate that the risks and benefits of salpingectomy with cesarean delivery need to be better defined before a preferred strategy can be determined., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Opportunistic salpingectomy is a cost-effective strategy recommended for ovarian cancer (OvCa) risk reduction at the time of gynecologic surgery in women who have completed childbearing. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy compared to standard tubal ligation (TL) during cesarean delivery., Study Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling to compare opportunistic salpingectomy to TL at the time of cesarean using probabilities of procedure completion derived from a trial. Probability and cost inputs were derived from local data and the literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2017 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the proportion of simulations in which each strategy would be cost-effective., Results: Opportunistic salpingectomy was cost-effective compared to TL with an ICER of $26,616 per QALY. In 10,000 women desiring sterilization with cesarean, opportunistic salpingectomy would result in 17 fewer OvCa diagnoses, 13 fewer OvCa deaths, and 25 fewer unintended pregnancies compared to TL - with an associated cost increase of $4.7 million. The model was sensitive only to OvCa risk reduction from salpingectomy and TL. Opportunistic salpingectomy was not cost-effective if its cost was >$3163.74 more than TL, if the risk-reduction of salpingectomy was <41%, or if the risk-reduction of TL was >46%. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis opportunistic salpingectomy was cost effective in 75% of simulations., Conclusions: In women undergoing cesarean with sterilization, opportunistic salpingectomy is likely cost-effective and may be cost-saving in comparison to TL for OvCa risk reduction., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynaecologic cancer. Disease prevention may be the only method to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology advised that salpingectomies may be an appropriate and feasible strategy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. This study conducted an economic evaluation from a societal perspective of bilateral salpingectomies versus conventional sterilization techniques in the prevention of ovarian cancer., Study Design: We performed a micro-cost analysis comparing laparoscopic tubal coagulation, tubal clips and bilateral salpingectomies at the Michael Garron Hospital, formerly the Toronto East General Hospital, from 2015 to 2016. A Markov model was used in the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses on these surgical procedures in ovarian cancer prevention. Costs were derived for the number ovarian cancer cases observed per sterilization method, cancer treatment, and associated procedural costs over each cancer patient's lifetime. The number of bilateral salpingectomies required to prevent an additional ovarian cancer case with the recommended treatment was also estimated., Results: Bilateral salpingectomies performed at the Michael Garron Hospital generated savings of $7823 per life-year gained (95% CI $3248-$10 190; incremental cost [ΔC] -$907, incremental effect [ΔE] 0.11 life-years gained) compared with tubal clips and savings of $6315 per life-year gained (95% CI -$6360 to $9342; ΔC -$755, ΔE 0.11 life-years gained) compared with tubal coagulation. Most importantly, for every 150 bilateral salpingectomies performed, one case of ovarian cancer may be prevented., Conclusion: Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy is the dominant, cost-effective surgical strategy when compared to tubal clips and tubal coagulation to prevent ovarian cancer. Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomies reduce costs and enhance quality-adjusted life-years relative to the two alternative treatments., (Copyright © 2018 Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fallopian tubes are commonly removed during laparoscopic and open hysterectomy to prevent ovarian and tubal cancer but are not routinely removed during vaginal hysterectomy because of perceptions of increased morbidity, difficulty, or inadequate surgical training., Objective: We sought to quantify complications and costs associated with a strategy of planned salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy., Study Design: We created a decision analysis model using TreeAgePro. Effectiveness outcomes included ovarian cancer incidence and mortality as well as major surgical complications. Modeled complications included transfusion, conversion to laparotomy or laparoscopy, abscess/hematoma requiring intervention, ileus, readmission, and reoperation within 30 days. We also modeled subsequent benign adnexal surgery beyond the postoperative window. Those whose procedures were converted from a vaginal route were assumed to undergo bilateral salpingectomy, regardless of treatment group, following American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines. Costs were gathered from published literature and Medicare reimbursement data, with internal cost data from 892 hysterectomies at a single institution used to estimate costs when necessary. Complication rates were determined from published literature and from 13,397 vaginal hysterectomies recorded in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2008 through 2013., Results: Switching from a policy of vaginal hysterectomy alone to a policy of routine planned salpingectomy prevents a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in 1 of every 225 women having surgery and prevents death from ovarian cancer in 1 of every 450 women having surgery. Overall, salpingectomy was a less expensive strategy than not performing salpingectomy ($7350.62 vs $8113.45). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the driving force behind increased costs was the increased risk of subsequent benign adnexal surgery among women retaining their tubes. Planned opportunistic salpingectomy had more major complications than hysterectomy alone (7.95% vs 7.68%). Major complications included transfusion, conversion to laparotomy or laparoscopy, abscess/hematoma requiring intervention, ileus, readmission, and reoperation within 30 days. Therefore, routine salpingectomy results in 0.61 additional complications per case of cancer prevented and 1.21 additional complications per death prevented. A surgeon therefore must withstand an additional ∼3 complications to prevent 5 cancer diagnoses and ∼6 additional complications to prevent 5 cancer deaths., Conclusion: Salpingectomy should routinely be performed with vaginal hysterectomy because it was the dominant and therefore cost-effective strategy. Complications are minimally increased, but the trade-off with cancer prevention is highly favorable., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Data suggesting a link between the fallopian tube and ovarian cancer have led to an increase in rates of salpingectomy at the time of pelvic surgery, a practice known as opportunistic salpingectomy (OS). However, the potential benefits, risks and costs for this new practice are not well established. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of laparoscopic permanent contraception or hysterectomy for benign indications., Methods: We created two models to compare the cost-effectiveness of salpingectomy versus usual care. The hypothetical study population is 50,000 women aged 45 undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with ovarian preservation for benign indications, and 300,000 women aged 35 undergoing laparoscopic permanent contraception. SEER data were used for probabilities of ovarian cancer cases and deaths. The ovarian cancer risk reduction, complication rates, utilities and associated costs were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained., Results: In the laparoscopic hysterectomy cohort, OS is cost saving and would yield $23.9 million in health care dollars saved. In the laparoscopic permanent contraception cohort, OS is cost-effective with an ICER of $31,432/QALY compared to tubal ligation, and remains cost-effective as long as it reduces ovarian cancer risk by 54%. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated cost-effectiveness with hysterectomy and permanent contraception in 62.3% and 55% of trials, respectively., Conclusions: Opportunistic salpingectomy for low-risk women undergoing pelvic surgery may be a cost-effective strategy for decreasing ovarian cancer risk at time of hysterectomy or permanent contraception. In our model, salpingectomy was cost-effective with both procedures, but the advantage greater at time of hysterectomy., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To define risk thresholds for cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) for ovarian cancer (OC) prevention in low/intermediate risk postmenopausal women., Methods: A decision-analytic model compares lifetime costs-&-effects of offering 'RRSO' with 'no RRSO' to postmenopausal women ≥50years for different lifetime OC-risk thresholds: 2%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10%. Well established data from the literature are used to estimate total costs, effects in terms of Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years(QALYs), cancer incidence, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER) and impact. Costs are reported at 2012 prices; costs/outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) evaluate model uncertainty., Results: RRSO does not save QALYs and is not cost-effective at the 2% general population lifetime OC-risk. At 4% OC-risk RRSO saves QALYs but is not cost-effective. At risk thresholds ≥5%, RRSO saves more life-years and QALYs and is highly cost-effective. The ICERs for OC-risk levels 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% are £15,247, £9958, £4584, and £1864 respectively. The gain in life-years from RRSO equates to 29.2, 40.1, 62.1 and 80.3days at risk thresholds of 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% respectively. The results are not sensitive to treatment costs of RRSO/OC/cardiovascular events but are sensitive to utility-scores for RRSO. On PSA, 67%, 80%, 84%, 91% and 94% of simulations at risk thresholds of 4%, 5%, 6%, 8% and 10% respectively are cost-effective for RRSO., Conclusion: RRSO is highly cost-effective in postmenopausal women aged >50 with ≥5% lifetime OC-risk and increases life-expectancy by ≥29.2days. The results could have significant clinical implications given the improvements in risk prediction and falling costs of genotyping., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) around the age of 40 is currently recommended to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. This procedure decreases the elevated ovarian cancer risk by 80-96% but it initiates premature menopause as well. The latter is associated with short-term and long-term morbidity, potentially affecting quality of life (QoL). Based on recent insights into the Fallopian tube as possible site of origin of serous ovarian carcinomas, an alternative preventive strategy has been put forward: early risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS) and delayed oophorectomy (RRO). However, efficacy and safety of this alternative strategy have to be investigated., Methods: A multicentre non-randomised trial in 11 Dutch centres for hereditary cancer will be conducted. Eligible patients are premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers after completing childbearing without (a history of) ovarian carcinoma. Participants choose between standard RRSO at age 35-40 (BRCA1) or 40-45 (BRCA2) and the alternative strategy (RRS upon completion of childbearing and RRO at age 40-45 (BRCA1) or 45-50 (BRCA2)). Women who opt for RRS but do not want to postpone RRO beyond the currently recommended age are included as well. Primary outcome measure is menopause-related QoL. Secondary outcome measures are ovarian/breast cancer incidence, surgery-related morbidity, histopathology, cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, and cost-effectiveness. Mixed model data analysis will be performed., Discussion: The exact role of the Fallopian tube in ovarian carcinogenesis is still unclear. It is not expected that further fundamental research will elucidate this role in the near future. Therefore, this clinical trial is essential to investigate RRS with delayed RRO as alternative risk-reducing strategy in order to improve QoL., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02321228 ).

Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of opportunistic salpingectomy (elective salpingectomy at hysterectomy or instead of tubal ligation)., Methods: A Markov Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the costs and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy in a hypothetical cohort of women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecologic conditions or surgical sterilization. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Effectiveness was measured in terms of life expectancy gain. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around various parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated the number of ovarian cancer cases associated with each strategy in the Canadian population., Results: Salpingectomy with hysterectomy was less costly ($11,044.32 ± $1.56) than hysterectomy alone ($11,206.52 ± $29.81) or with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy ($12,626.84 ± $13.11) but more effective at 21.12 ± 0.02 years compared with 21.10 ± 0.03 and 20.94 ± 0.03 years, representing average gains of 1 week and 2 months, respectively. For surgical sterilization, salpingectomy was more costly ($9,719.52 ± $3.74) than tubal ligation ($9,339.48 ± $26.74) but more effective at 22.45 ± 0.02 years compared with 22.43 ± 0.02 years (average gain of 1 week) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,278 per year of life gained. Our results were stable over a wide range of costs and risk estimates. Monte Carlo simulation predicted that salpingectomy would reduce ovarian cancer risk by 38.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 36.5-41.3%) and 29.2% (95% CI 28.0-31.4%) compared with hysterectomy alone or tubal ligation, respectively., Conclusion: Salpingectomy with hysterectomy for benign conditions will reduce ovarian cancer risk at acceptable cost and is a cost-effective alternative to tubal ligation for sterilization. Opportunistic salpingectomy should be considered for all women undergoing these surgical procedures.

Background: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is currently regarded as the most certain primary method for preventing ovarian cancer among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. However, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy has rarely been performed in Japan., Methods: We developed the first system in Japan for performing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers at our university hospital in 2008., Results: The indication for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for patients with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndrome is currently limited in Japan. This situation may be because of the limited number of genetic counseling units, the limited number of facilities that can perform BRCA1/2 genetic testing and the fact that prophylactic surgery is not covered by health insurance in Japan., Conclusions: Recent treatment guidelines for breast cancer in Japan recommended risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy should be performed in the framework of the standard therapeutic modality for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the near future.