Advances in Cancer Prevention
Open Access

Salpingo-oophorectomy; Genetic counseling; Cancer risk management; Multidisciplinary care; Quality of life

Introduction

Cancer prevention strategies for individuals at high genetic risk, such as those with BRCA1/2 mutations, often involve two primary approaches: prophylactic surgery and surveillance. Prophylactic surgery, including mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, is known for its ability to significantly reduce the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers. By removing high-risk tissues, these procedures provide a tangible, long-term solution to cancer prevention. However, the decision to undergo prophylactic surgery is complex, involving considerations of physical risks, emotional impacts, and potential changes in quality of life [1]. On the other hand, surveillance strategies, which typically include regular imaging, blood tests, and screenings, allow individuals to monitor their health closely without undergoing surgery. This non-invasive approach appeals to those who wish to preserve their natural anatomy, fertility, and bodily integrity, but it introduces the ongoing anxiety of potential cancer development, as well as the possibility of late-stage detection. This article aims to explore and compare the outcomes of prophylactic surgery versus surveillance in cancer prevention, focusing on cancer incidence, survival rates, psychological effects, and quality of life. By examining the benefits and limitations of each approach, we seek to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the best strategies for individuals at high risk of cancer. Ultimately, the goal is to inform patients and healthcare providers in making shared, personalized decisions that align with both medical evidence and individual preferences [2].

Discussion

The decision between prophylactic surgery and surveillance is a crucial aspect of cancer prevention for individuals with hereditary risk factors, particularly those with BRCA1/2 mutations, Lynch syndrome, or other genetic predispositions. Both approaches aim to mitigate cancer risk but come with distinct benefits, limitations, and psychological impacts. A thorough understanding of the comparative outcomes of each method is essential to guide informed decision-making for patients at high genetic risk [3].

Prophylactic surgery, such as mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers. Studies suggest that mastectomy can reduce the risk of breast cancer by up to 90%, while oophorectomy can lower ovarian cancer risk by 95% in individuals with high genetic risk. These procedures can also lead to a decrease in cancer-related anxiety, as patients often feel a sense of control over their health and a decreased threat of future cancer diagnoses [4]. Furthermore, prophylactic surgery often leads to improved survival rates, as early removal of high-risk tissues reduces the likelihood of late-stage cancer development. However, while the clinical outcomes of prophylactic surgery are compelling, the procedure is not without its challenges. Surgery carries inherent risks, including complications from anesthesia, infection, and prolonged recovery periods. For women, the removal of ovaries leads to menopause, which can bring about significant hormonal changes, including hot flashes, osteoporosis, and increased cardiovascular risks. Mastectomy, while effectively reducing cancer risk, can also result in body image concerns, sexual health implications, and emotional distress, especially if reconstruction is not an option or does not meet the patient’s expectations [5].

In contrast, surveillance offers a less invasive option, allowing patients to monitor their health through regular screenings such as mammography, MRI, blood tests and pelvic exams. Surveillance does not carry the immediate physical risks associated with surgery, and it preserves a patient’s natural anatomy, fertility, and reproductive potential. This can be particularly appealing for younger patients or those who are not ready to undergo permanent, life-changing surgeries [6]. However, surveillance comes with its own set of challenges. The major downside is the uncertainty and psychological burden associated with the possibility of cancer detection. Despite advances in early detection technologies, such as high-resolution imaging and genetic testing, the anxiety of awaiting test results and the potential for false positives or missed diagnoses can take a toll on a patient's mental health. Additionally, while surveillance allows for early cancer detection, it cannot eliminate the risk entirely, and many cancers are still diagnosed at later stages, limiting the effectiveness of this approach in some cases [7].

Psychological impacts are a significant consideration in both prophylactic surgery and surveillance. Prophylactic surgery, while providing a sense of security for some, can lead to feelings of loss, depression, and anxiety, especially in patients who have not fully processed the emotional and physical changes that accompany these interventions. The loss of fertility and the physical changes after mastectomy can also affect a patient’s sense of femininity and sexual identity. On the other hand, surveillance often creates chronic anxiety and stress, as patients are continually reminded of their elevated cancer risk [8]. While some individuals may find comfort in knowing they are being monitored closely, others may struggle with the emotional toll of waiting for potential cancer diagnoses, leading to mental health challenges such as heightened worry, depression, and even avoidance behaviors in some cases.

There are also ethical dimensions to consider in the decision-making process. The decision to undergo prophylactic surgery should ideally be made in consultation with genetic counselors, oncologists, and mental health professionals. This ensures that patients fully understand the implications of each option and are able to make choices aligned with their personal values and health goals [9]. Additionally, healthcare access and equity are important considerations, as not all patients may have equal access to genetic testing, surveillance options, or surgical interventions, which could contribute to disparities in cancer prevention outcomes. While both prophylactic surgery and surveillance are effective strategies for cancer prevention, emerging technologies and personalized medicine are poised to improve these approaches. Advances in genetic risk profiling and personalized treatments, such as chemoprevention or targeted therapies, may provide alternatives to surgery and surveillance, offering additional options for those at high genetic risk. Additionally, improvements in non-invasive technologies, such as liquid biopsies, may allow for more accurate and earlier detection of cancer, thereby reducing the reliance on invasive surveillance techniques [10].

Conclusion

Ultimately, the decision between prophylactic surgery and surveillance depends on a variety of factors, including the patient’s genetic risk, personal preferences, psychological well-being, and the advice of their healthcare team. Both approaches offer substantial benefits in reducing cancer risk, but they also come with significant trade-offs. Prophylactic surgery provides a higher level of cancer risk reduction but involves irreversible changes to the body and emotional well-being, while surveillance offers a more conservative, non-invasive approach but carries the emotional burden of ongoing uncertainty. Personalized care, guided by shared decision-making, is essential in helping patients navigate this complex decision and choose the option that best aligns with their health, values, and lifestyle. Ultimately, the decision between these two options should be guided by a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s genetic risk, personal preferences, quality of life considerations, and psychological well-being. A shared decision-making process, facilitated by genetic counselors, oncologists, and mental health professionals, is essential in ensuring that the chosen approach aligns with the patient's health goals and values. As the field continues to evolve, new advancements in genetic testing, surveillance technologies, and non-surgical interventions hold the promise of providing more tailored and effective cancer prevention strategies. However, both prophylactic surgery and surveillance remain integral components of cancer risk management, with a focus on empowering patients to make informed, confident decisions about their health and future.

1. Taquet M, Luciano S, Geddes JR, (2021)Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62,354 COVID-19 cases in the USA. Lancet Psychiatry 8: 130-140.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Kisely S, Sawyer E, Siskind D, Lalloo R (2016)The oral health of people with anxiety and depressive disorders - a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 200: 119-132.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Elm EV, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. (2007)Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335: 806-808.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Tonetti MS, Prato GP, Cortellini P (1995)Effect of cigarette smoking on periodontal healing following GTR in infrabony defects. A preliminary retrospective study. J Clin Periodontol 22: 229-234.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Malinowska KS, Malicka B, Ziętek M, Ziętek M, Kaczmarek U, et al. (2018)Oral health condition and occurrence of depression in the elderly. Medicine (Baltimore) 97: e12490.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Romanelli F, Adler DA, Bungay KM (1996)Possible paroxetine-induced bruxism. Ann Pharmacother 30: 1246-8.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Hanawa T (2019)Titanium-Tissue Interface Reaction and Its Control With Surface Treatment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 7: 170.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Piqué EJ, Anglada M, RobledSM, Castaño JG, Echeverría F, et al. (2015)Osseointegration improvement by plasma electrolytic oxidation of modified titanium alloys surfaces. J Mater Sci Mater Med 26: 72.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Pacheco KA (2019)Allergy to Surgical Implants. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 56: 72-85.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Remes A, Williams DF (1992)Immune response in biocompatibility. Biomaterials 13: 731-743.   

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref