Evidence mapPaperPMID 40172609Full record

GuidelineArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025

Intergroup statement: opportunistic salpingectomy-molecular pathology, clinical outcomes and implications for practice (German Ovarian Cancer Commission, the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), AGO Austria and AGO Swiss).

Martin Pölcher, Pauline Wimberger, Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein, Ingo Runnebaum, Susanne Schüler-Toprak, Sven Mahner, Christoph Grimm, Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz, Annette Hasenburg, Jalid Sehouli

Abstract readPractice GuidelineReview
In one paragraph

Guideline in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Martin PölcherDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Rotkreuzklinikum München Frauenklinik, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany.
Pauline WimbergerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Ivo Meinhold-HeerleinDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Ingo RunnebaumDepartment of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Susanne Schüler-ToprakDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Sven MahnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Christoph GrimmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna, Austria.
Viola Heinzelmann-SchwarzGynecological Cancer Center, Women's Hospital, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Annette HasenburgObstetrics and Gynecology, Mainz University, Mainz, Germany.
Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany. Jalid.sehouli@charite.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opportunistic salpingectomy is defined as the removal of both fallopian tubes as part of a surgical procedure planned for other reasons. The goal is primary prevention of ovarian cancer. The procedure is offered to patients who are not known to be at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. This is in contrast to high-risk patients with a germline mutation, particularly BRCA1/2, for whom risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is generally recommended. Premalignant cells and early occult cancers have been detected in RRSO specimens in the fimbrial funnel region, but not on the ovarian surface. The presence of mitoses, nuclear atypia, and staining in response to p53 mutation in these serous intraepithelial carcinomas (STIC) indicates the initial genetic changes in the fallopian tube mucosa that subsequently lead to the development of advanced peritoneal carcinomas. The identification of STICs has challenged the traditional view of the pathogenesis of the largest subset of epithelial ovarian cancers, namely the high-grade serous cancers of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum. In a position statement published in 2015, the German Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Kommission Ovar recommended that patients be informed of the latest findings on the development and potential benefits of bilateral salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy. This may reduce the risk of developing ovarian cancer later in life. However, the scientific evidence has not been deemed sufficient to justify a general recommendation. In the same year, the Austrian AGO published a statement recommending the broad use of opportunistic salpingectomy without reservation. This review examines the current status of molecular pathology studies, recent evidence on the clinical implications of STIC, new data on the use of opportunistic salpingectomy, and published patient outcomes since then. The question of whether the potential benefit of opportunistic salpingectomy, outweighs the potential harms associated with surgical morbidity, which have not been conclusively excluded, should be revisited in light of these recent data.

Indexed as

Carcinoma in SituFallopian Tube NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialOvarian NeoplasmsSalpingectomyCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFallopian TubesFemaleHumansProphylactic Surgical ProceduresOpportunistic salpingectomyOvarian cancerPreventionSTIC

Identifiers

PMID40172609
PMCPMC12033089

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.