Scholarlink

Objective <p>The aim of this study was to assess current clinical practices, management, and follow-up care for women with an isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) diagnosis in German-speaking countries.</p> Methods <p>An online survey targeting all German-speaking gynecological centers was developed. The survey included single- and multiple-choice questions on hospital data, such as the number of cases per year and certification, as well as detailed questions on two scenarios: a <i>BRCA1</i>-positive patient undergoing prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and a patient with an incidental STIC finding after hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy.</p> Results <p>This survey was answered by 77 physicians. For a patient with a known <i>BRCA1</i> mutation and STIC, 89.29% of respondents would perform further diagnostics. The most frequent diagnostic steps would be a CA-125 test (83.64%) and a CT abdomen (63.64%). Further surgery would be performed by 77.78% of respondents, including 75.93% without and 5.56% with lymph node staging. 79.25% would prefer laparoscopic surgery. The majority (90.57%) would not recommend adjuvant therapy. In a patient without a known mutation and STIC, 88.46% of respondents would recommend further examinations. 58.82% would carry out genetic panel testing. Another subsequent surgery would be performed by 76.47%, with 66.67% planning to perform surgery without lymph node staging. 53.06% of respondents would follow up patients for five years. Percentages are reported based on the number of valid responses for each item.</p> Conclusion <p>This survey demonstrates differences in the clinical management of isolated STIC across German-speaking countries, highlighting discrepancies between guideline recommendations and real-world practices.</p> This study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under <p>DRKS00033112</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Management of incidental STIC lesions with and without BRCA mutations: a survey of current clinical practice in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月20日

查看全文
  • Natalia Anna Kaufmann,
  • Peter Oppelt,
  • Christoph Grimm,
  • Julia Lastinger,
  • Teresa Eichinger,
  • Philip Trautner,
  • Anja Hartl,
  • Stefan Raidl,
  • Dariga Ramazanova,
  • Caroline Ines Preuss

摘要

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess current clinical practices, management, and follow-up care for women with an isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) diagnosis in German-speaking countries.

Methods

An online survey targeting all German-speaking gynecological centers was developed. The survey included single- and multiple-choice questions on hospital data, such as the number of cases per year and certification, as well as detailed questions on two scenarios: a BRCA1-positive patient undergoing prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and a patient with an incidental STIC finding after hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy.

Results

This survey was answered by 77 physicians. For a patient with a known BRCA1 mutation and STIC, 89.29% of respondents would perform further diagnostics. The most frequent diagnostic steps would be a CA-125 test (83.64%) and a CT abdomen (63.64%). Further surgery would be performed by 77.78% of respondents, including 75.93% without and 5.56% with lymph node staging. 79.25% would prefer laparoscopic surgery. The majority (90.57%) would not recommend adjuvant therapy. In a patient without a known mutation and STIC, 88.46% of respondents would recommend further examinations. 58.82% would carry out genetic panel testing. Another subsequent surgery would be performed by 76.47%, with 66.67% planning to perform surgery without lymph node staging. 53.06% of respondents would follow up patients for five years. Percentages are reported based on the number of valid responses for each item.

Conclusion

This survey demonstrates differences in the clinical management of isolated STIC across German-speaking countries, highlighting discrepancies between guideline recommendations and real-world practices.

This study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under

DRKS00033112