Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 625 - файл

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
20 Мб
Скачать
28 Prophylactic Surgery forBenign Gynecologic Pathologies
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
321
28.5.2 Risks Against Benets andFeasibility
Increased morbidity related to prophylactic appendectomy is shown in many studies [8286]. There are also many studies proving that prophy­lactic appendectomy does not increase morbidity [8789]. Although the issue is controversial, gynecologists are cautious about prophylactic appendectomy. This can be explained by the lack of denitive recommendations and medico-legal concerns. A study with one of the goals is to address these concerns was performed in Holland. Forty ve cesarean delivery with prophylactic appendectomy and 48 cesarean delivery without prophylactic appendectomy were performed by obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians who were supervised by maternal fetal medicine faculty members. No increased morbidity was found between the two groups at the end of the study. Venous engorgement in pelvis, a fresh uterine scar, blood in the uterine and abdominal cavity, increased risk of ileus, bacterial contami­nation in manipulation of the bowel, increased blood loss, and increased operating time can be counted as justied concerns, as well [9092].
In the light of abovementioned controversial literature, patient selection should be individual­ized for coincidental appendectomy in obstetrics and gynecological surgery and contribution of general surgeons should be requested in operation.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Mrs. Sandie Elisme for language editing.
References
1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian can­cer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e279–84.
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics,
2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.
3. Bruckner HW, Cohen CJ, Goldberg JD, etal. Cisplatin
regimens and improved prognosis of patients with poorly differentiated ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145:653.
4. Vogl SE, Pagano M, Kaplan BH, et al. Cis-platin based combination chemotherapy for advanced ovar­ian cancer. High overall response rate with curative potential only in women with small tumor burdens. Cancer. 1983;51:2024.
5. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, etal. High-volume ovarian cancer care: survival impact and disparities in access for advanced-stage disease. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:403.
6. Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, etal. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the mbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:161–9.
7. Kuhn E, Kurman RJ, Vang R, etal. TP53 mutations in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and concurrent pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma–evidence sup­porting the clonal relationship of the two lesions. J Pathol. 2012;226:421–6.
8. Rice MS, Hankinson SE, Tworoger SS. Tubal liga­tion, hysterectomy, unilateral oophorectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer in the Nurses’ Health Studies. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:192–8.e3.
9. Falconer H, Yin L, Gronberg H, Altman D.Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(2):dju410.
10. Gaitskell K, Coffey K, Green J, etal. Tubal ligation and incidence of 26 site-specic cancers in the million women study. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1033.
11. Yoon SH, Kim SN, Shim SH, etal. Bilateral salpin­gectomy can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in the general population: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016;55:38–46.
12. Garavaglia E, Sigismondi C, Ferrari S, et al. The origin of endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer from uterine neoplastic lesions. Med Hypotheses. 2018;110:80–2.
13. Powell CB, Alabaster A, Simmons S, et al. Salpingectomy for sterilization: change in practice in a large integrated health care system, 2011-2016. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:961.
14. Creinin MD, Zite N. Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:596.
15. Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL. Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:492.
16. Camus E, Poncelet C, Aucouturier JS, et al. Hydrosalpinx and fertilization invitro-embryo trans­fer: abstention or salpingectomy? Abstention, salpin­gectomy or salpingostomy? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2001;29:466.
17. Cadish LA, Shepherd JP, Barber EL, etal. Risks and benets of opportunistic salpingectomy during vagi­nal hysterectomy: a decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:603.e1–6.
18. Rocca WA, Grossardt BR, de Andrade M, et al. Survival patterns after oophorectomy in
322
S. A. Ari and A. Akdemir
premenopausal women: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:821.
19. Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E, etal. Ovarian con­servation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1027–37.
20. Mytton J, Evison F, Chilton PJ, et al. Removal of all ovarian tissue versus conserving ovarian tissue at time of hysterectomy in premenopausal patients with benign disease: study using routine data and data link­age. BMJ. 2017;356:j372.
21. Parker WH, Broder MS, Liu Z, etal. Ovarian conser­vation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(2):219–26.
22. Parker WH. Bilateral oophorectomy versus ovarian conservation: effects on long-term women’s health. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:161–6.
23. Catenacci M, Sastry S, Falcone T. Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;52:351.
24. Wiesenfeld HC, Sweet RL.Progress in the manage­ment of tuboovarian abscesses. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1993;36:433.
25. Salim R, Gray G, Chappatte OA.The feasibility and efcacy of laparoscope oophorectomy in the man­agement of pelvic pain after hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:718.
26. Dekel A, Efrat Z, Orvieto R, et al. The residual ovary syndrome: a 20-year experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;68:159.
27. McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovar­ian cancer prevention. Ovarian Cancer Research Program of British Columbia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:471.e1–11.
28. Hanley GE, McAlpine JN, Pearce CL, etal. The per­formance and safety of bilateral salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:270.e1–9.
29. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 208: benets and risks of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e194–207.
30. Findley AD, Siedhoff MT, Hobbs KA, et al. Short­term effects of salpingectomy during laparoscopic hysterectomy on ovarian reserve: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1704–8.
31. Sahin C, Taylan E, Akdemir A, etal. The impact of salpingectomy and single-dose systemic metho­trexate treatments on ovarian reserve in ectopic pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:150–2.
32. Simsek D, Akdemir A, Ergenoglu M, etal. Effect of opportunistic salpingectomy on ovarian reserve in patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indica­tions. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;1:191–9.
33. Venturella R, Lico D, Borelli M, etal. 3 to 5 years later: long-term effects of prophylactic bilateral sal­pingectomy on ovarian function. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:145–50.
34. Asgari Z, Tehranian A, Rouholamin S, et al. Comparing surgical outcome and ovarian reserve after laparoscopic hysterectomy between two methods of with and without prophylactic bilateral salpingec­tomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Can Res Ther. 2018;14:543–8.
35. Ganer Herman H, Gluck O, Keidar R, etal. Ovarian reserve following cesarean section with salpingec­tomy vs tubal ligation: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:472.e1–6.
36. Shinar S, Blecher Y, Alpern S, etal. Total bilateral sal­pingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295:1185–9.
37. Subramaniam A, Blanchard CT, Erickson BK, etal. Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean deliv­ery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:20–7.
38. Garcia C, Moskowitz OM, Chisholm CA, et al. Salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation at cesar­ean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:29–34.
39. Danis RB, Della Badia CR, Richard SD. Postpartum permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy replace bilateral tubal ligation? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:928–32.
40. McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and com­plications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:471.E1.
41. Westberg J, Scott F, Creinin MD. Safety outcomes of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. Contraception. 2017;95(5):505–8.
42. Antosh DD, High R, Brown HW, et al. Feasibility of prophylactic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterec­tomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:605.e1–5.
43. Kwon JS, McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, et al. Costs and benets of opportunistic salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:338.
44. Chene G, Rahimi K, Mes-Masson AM, etal. Surgical implications of the potential new tubal pathway for ovarian carcinogenesis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:153–9.
45. Cass I, Holschneider C, Datta N, et al. BRCA­mutation- associated fallopian tube carcinoma: a distinct clinical phenotype? Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:1327–34.
46. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, etal. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:549–55.
47. Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, et al. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:299–302.
48. Altman D, Falconer C, Cnattingius S, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:572.e1.
28 Prophylactic Surgery forBenign Gynecologic Pathologies
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
323
49. DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal ever­sion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1717.
50. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, etal. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:679.
51. Lykke R, Blaakær J, Ottesen B, et al. Incidence of pelvic organ prolapse repair subsequent to hysterec­tomy: a comparison between radical hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:745.
52. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, etal. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and periopera­tive behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1023.
53. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology and the American Urogynecologic Society. Practice bul­letin no. 176: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e56.
54. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guide­lines on the prevention of apical prolapse at the time of benign hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:715.
55. Hoffman MS, Lynch CM, Nackley A. Ureteral obstruction from high McCall’s culdeplasty. J Gynecol Surg. 2000;16:119–23.
56. Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM.Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:124.
57. Rardin CR, Erekson EA, Sung VW, etal. Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: com­parison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. J Reprod Med. 2009;54:273–80.
58. Chene G, Tardieu AS, Savary D, etal. Anatomical and functional results of McCall culdoplasty in the pre­vention of enteroceles and vaginal vault prolapse after vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(7):1007–11.
59. Gencdal S, Demirel E, Soyman Z, etal. Prophylactic McCall culdoplasty by a vaginal approach during mini-laparoscopic hysterectomy. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:8047924.
60. Davenport ER, Vennart RM. Prophylactic laparo­scopic uterosacral ligament suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(7 Suppl):S88.
61. Gustilo-Ashby AM, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, et al. The incidence of ureteral obstruction and the value of intraoperative cystoscopy during vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1478.
62. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 142: cerclage for the manage­ment of cervical insufciency. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:372–9.
63. Iams JD, Johnson FF, Sonek J, etal. Cervical compe­tence as a continuum: a study of ultrasonographic cer­vical length and obstetric performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1097–103.
64. Saccone G, Ciardulli A, Xodo S.Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies with short cervical length: a systematic review and meta­analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(8):1535–43.
65. Sneider K, Christiansen OB, Sundtoft IB.Recurrence rates after abdominal and vaginal cerclages in women with cervical insufciency: a validated cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(4):859–66.
66. Treadwell MC, Bronsteen RA, Bottoms SF.Prognostic factors and complication rates for cervical cer­clage: a review of 482 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:555–8.
67. Althuisius S, Dekker G, Hummel P, et al. Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): effect of therapeutic cerclage with bed rest vs. bed rest only on cervical length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20:163–7.
68. Wolfe L, DePasquale S, Adair CD, et al. Robotic­assisted laparoscopic placement of transabdomi­nal cerclage during pregnancy. Am J Perinatol. 2008;25:653–5.
69. Groom K, Jones BA, Edmonds K, etal. Preconception transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):230–4.
70. Dawood F, Farquharson RG. Transabdominal cer­clage: preconceptual versus rst trimester insertion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;199:27–31.
71. Vousden NJ, Carter J, Seed PT, et al. What is the impact of preconception abdominal cerclage on fertil­ity: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:543–6.
72. Berghella V, Szychowski JM, Owen J, etal. Suture type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efcacy. Vaginal ultrasound trial consortium. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:2287–90.
73. Davis G, Berghella V, Talucci M, etal. Patients with a prior failed transvaginal cerclage: a comparison of obstetric outcomes with either transabdominal or trans-vaginal cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:836–9.
74. Romero R, Espinoza J, Erez O, etal. The role of cervi­cal cerclage in obstetric practice: can the patient who could benet from this procedure be identied? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1–9.
75. Arı SA, Akdemir A, Sendag F.Transabdominal cervi­cal cerclage. In: Nezhat C, Kavic M, Lanzafame R, Lindsay M, Polk T, editors. Non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy. Berlin: Springer; 2019. p.355–60.
76. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Elective coincidental appendectomy: ACOG com­mittee opinion 323. Washington, DC: The College;
2005.
77. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, etal. The epidemi­ology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:910–25.
78. Snyder TE, Selanders JR.Incidental appendectomy— yes or no? A retrospective case study and review of the literature. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998;6:30–7.
79. Lal AK, Weaver AL, Hopkins MR, etal. Laparoscopic appendectomy in women without identiable
324
S. A. Ari and A. Akdemir
pathology undergoing laparoscopy for chronic pelvic pain. JSLS. 2013;17(1):82–7.
80. Wie HJ, Lee JH, Kyung MS, etal. Is incidental appen­dectomy necessary in women with ovarian endometri­oma? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:107–11.
81. Peters A, Mansuria SM. The role of appendec­tomy at the time of laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecologic conditions. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(4):237–42.
82. Salom EM, Schey D, Penalver M, etal. The safety of incidental appendectomy at the time of abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1563– 7; discussion 1567–8.
83. Tranmer BI, Graham AM, Sterns EE. Incidental appendectomy?—yes. Can J Surg. 1981;24:191–2.
84. Voitk AJ, Lowry JB. Is incidental appendectomy a safe practice? Can J Surg. 1988;31:448–51.
85. Chiarugi M, Buccianti P, Decanini L, etal. What you see is not what you get. A plea to remove a ‘normal’ appendix during diagnostic laparoscopy. Acta Chir Belg. 2001;101:243–5.
86. Nezhat C, Nezhat F. Incidental appendectomy during videolaseroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:559–64.
87. Pearce C, Torres C, Stallings S, etal. Elective appen­dectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a random­ized controlled trial [published correction appears in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;201(2):214]. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(5):491.e1–e4915.
88. Lee JH, Choi JS, Jeon SW, etal. Laparoscopic inci­dental appendectomy during laparoscopic surgery for ovarian endometrioma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(1):28.e1–e285.
89. Choksuwattanasakul M. Incidental appendec­tomy during mini incision post-partum sterilization (Chokchai technique): a prospective cross-sectional study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(12):1863–9.
90. Israel SL, Roitman HB. Cesarean section and pro­phylactic appendectomy: the passing of a prejudice. Obstet Gynecol. 1957;10:102–4.
91. Tungphaisal S, Chandeying V, Pinjaroen S, et al. Incidental appendectomy at cesarean section: a pro­spective study. J Med Assoc Thail. 1989;72:633–7.
92. Parsons AK, Sauer MV, Parsons MT, et al. Appendectomy at cesarean section: a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68:479–82.
Prophylactic Surgical Procedures
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
inPlastic Surgery
ÖmerFarukDilek , FuatUslusoy , andMustafaAsımAydın
29
29.1 Introduction
Prophylactic or preventive surgery is mostly known as a type of surgery whose purpose is to prevent the risk of developing cancer in an organ or gland. Although the usage of the term mostly restricted to cancer prevention based on the genetic characteristic, besides the cancer preven­tion, there are wide variety of cancer-unrelated conditions that their progression into unwanted consequences or more complex future diseases can be prevented surgically.
Since the surgeries are usually permanent and irreversible, in addition to detailed workups and consultations, ethical, physiological, and psycho­logical aspects of the procedure should be dis­cussed with the patients before the procedure. The pros and cons, costs, time lost, and recovery must be carefully weighed by individuals as well. These considerations are usually less challenging in plastic surgery practice because rather than removal of an organ or gland, in most cases it is the only resultant skin scar of the body that should be taken into account. However, the prob-
Ö. F. Dilek (*) Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Harakani State Hospital, Kars, Turkey e-mail: omerfaruk.dilek@saglik.gov.tr
F. Uslusoy · M. A. Aydın Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey e-mail: fuatuslusoy@sdu.edu.tr;
asimaydin@sdu.edu.tr
lem and its solution can also be extremely chal­lenging if the case is a congenital melanocytic nevus covering more than half of an infant’s body that requires meticulous planning, multiple sur­geries, and implant (tissue expander) replace­ments. It should be also kept in mind that, as a rule of thumb, surgical intentions in plastic sur­gery practice are mostly based on individual characteristics and needs, namely patient­tailored. Accordingly, surgeons should also carry on this demeanor in their prophylactic surgical practice by making patient-tailored risk and ben­et assessments.
Undertaking a prophylactic surgery, however, does not certainly guarantee that the patients will never have cancer in the future. As discussed thoroughly at some point below in this chapter, it is now better known that certain type of cancers, rather than developing from congenital suspi­cious lesion, more likely tend to occur in the healthy skin of a genetically susceptible individ­ual. While this may interrogate the indication of prophylactic surgery in certain instances, it also underlies the importance of the dermatologic sur­veillance that requires harmonic interdisciplinary interactions.
This chapter attempts to review plastic surgi­cal prophylactic conditions under three main top­ics. First, “cancer-related conditions” mainly discusses the hereditary syndromes with skin manifestations in which cancer prevention can be achieved by recognizing and removing the cer­tain type skin lesions and it also addresses some
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 O. N. Dilek et al. (eds.), Prophylactic Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66853-2_29
325
326
Ö. F. Dilek et al.
other sporadic conditions associated with the cancer development. Second topic accounts for well-known “premalignant lesions” in that some of their prophylactic surgical removal can be even lifesaving. And lastly “cancer-unrelated conditions” comprise certain benign conditions or injuries that are surgically targeted to prevent some kind of unwanted conditions, complica­tions, or loss of function.
29.2 Cancer-Related Conditions
Cancer-related prophylactic surgical applications in plastic surgery mostly begin with identication of the skin or soft tissue lesions that are known to be at increased risk for developing cancer. Cooperation between medical departments is also important because, as being the largest organ, the skin overlaps the interest of multiple disciplines and either detection or follow-up of a lesion with increased cancer risk often requires strict dermatologic surveillance. Furthermore, patients suffering from hereditary syndromes are somehow more likely to need multidisciplinary treatment.
Suspicious changes of previous lesion or a newly identied suspicious lesion during the der­matologic surveillance can lead the surgeon to perform a prophylactic removal, or despite the follow-up recommendation of a dermatologist, the patient can seek surgery because of the fear of cancer.
The identication of premalignant skin lesions and treatment of such suspicious lesions through prophylactic excision might have played an important role in the efforts to prevent and cure skin malignancies. In the light of striking contrast between the sophistication of diagnostic tools, and the crudeness of preventive surgery, treat­ment of these lesions, nevertheless, has been remained problematic and controversial. On the other hand, these lesions are usually conspicuous aberrations that patients seek a way to get rid of cosmetically. However, the oncological concerns for complete removal of dysplastic tissue do not usually coincide with some elaborate procedures for concealment of these lesions such as shaving,
peeling, curettage, or desiccation. When a patient is diagnosed with a premalignant skin lesion, there are two options to recommend: watchful waiting or prophylactic removal. If a strong fam­ily and social support is available and close clini­cal surveillance seems to be feasible, the recent trend tends to be in favor of the former way. In the face of diagnosed severe genetic instability and a report of strong family predisposition to malignant skin lesions, preemptive surgery might be lifesaving, keeping in mind, however, the malignancies not infrequently stem from normal­appearing skin in these patients.
29.2.1 Hereditary Melanoma andAtypical Mole/Nevus (Dysplastic Nevus)
Hereditary melanoma refers a spectrum of genet­ically inherited conditions which have an increased risk for developing malignant mela­noma of the skin and/or other tissues. Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is a neoplasm aris­ing from skin melanocytes (Fig.29.1). It repre­sents a small percentage of the overall skin cancers diagnosed each year (3%) but is account­able for an overwhelming number of the deaths (65%) resulted from the skin cancers [1]. Nevertheless, CMM is also a kind of malignancy that, if diagnosed early enough, almost yields 100% recovery. Since the 1950s, the incidence of melanoma has increased 340%; however, the death rate from melanoma has increased only
Fig. 29.1 Cutaneous malignant melanoma of the hand
29 Prophylactic Surgical Procedures inPlastic Surgery
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
327
150%, which has mostly been attributable to the early stage of diagnosis and more curable poten­tial of the disease when detected at earlier stages [1, 2]. Many factors are known that increase the neoplastic transformation of the melanocytes. Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, intermittent sun exposure (especially childhood sunburn), red or blonde hair, blue or gray eye color, Fitzpatrick skin types I and II, giant congenital nevi, atypical mole/dysplastic nevi, immunosuppression and genetic disorders, such as xeroderma pigmento­sum, Li–Fraumeni syndrome, and Familial Atypical Multiple Mole-Melanoma (FAMMM) syndrome constitute the most signicant risk fac­tors [36]. Increased awareness and surveillance of the abnormal and premalignant skin lesions [3] as well as recognizing patients at familial risk [7] has in part led to increased incidence of CMM detection at earlier stages, which plays an essen­tial role to decrease the mortality of the disease.
Approximately 5–10% of all CMMs occur in families with hereditary melanoma predisposi­tion [8]. This familial type of CMM was rst described two centuries ago. In 1820, Norris (1820) referred his observations to as a “fungoid disease” and described a family in which two members had CMM and several relatives had large moles [9]. In 1952, Cawley reported CMMs in a father with his two children and suggested a hereditary basis for the occurrence [10]. Later in 1967, Anderson etal. described 22 similar fami­lies [11]. After a decade, Clark etal. (1978) pre­sented the B-K mole syndrome characterized by the existence of numerous moles and increased risk of CMM formation among the family mem­bers [12]. Clinic and histologic properties described by Clark’s studies gave rise to many controversies. Soon after, Lynch (1978) proposed a more accurate naming, FAMMM syndrome, to be given to the observations in association with a distinguishing cutaneous phenotype character­ized by multiple large moles, irregular in shape, colored reddish-brown to pink, with evidence of pigmentary leakage, and with an apparent auto­somal dominant mode of inheritance [13].
In the readings on the hereditary melanoma, besides the clinical terms such as dysplastic nevus syndrome [14], atypical mole syndrome
[15] and Clark’s nevus syndrome [16], marked variety of histopathological terminology, for example, active junctional nevus, melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia, pagetoid melanocytic proliferation, atypical melanocytic proliferation or nevus with architectural disorder can be encountered. A National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference in 1992 recom­mended the descriptive term “atypical mole/ nevus” for the clinical diagnosis and the histo­logic term “dysplastic nevus” be replaced with “nevus with architectural disorder” and accom­panied with a statement describing the presence of atypia (mild, moderate, or severe) [17]. However, abovementioned and some other rec­ommendations of NIH has never been fully adopted by the medical community and the use of the appellation “dysplastic nevus” widely contin­ues [18]. All these different nomenclature and descriptions advocated are to describe leading actor lesion of the hereditary melanoma. Furthermore, atypical mole/nevus or dysplastic nevus provokes controversies and discussions not only for its clinical and histological terminology, but also for its denition, progression, and man­agement. Although there are several modied denition criteria made by various authors [12,
14, 17, 19, 20], an atypical mole/nevus is simply
a mole that exhibits distinct clinical features from banal mole and shares common histological fea­tures with CMM.Some authors advocate aban­doning the term “dysplastic nevus” [18] since it is not a clinical entity that is recognizable by a diagnostic criterion but can only be identied by histological examination [21]. Indeed, as shown by many studies, clinical diagnosis and the histo­logic properties of the common or atypical moles may not be correlated reliably [22, 23]. There are also some well-documented studies indicating patients with atypical moles, either sporadically [2427] or with a positive family history [20, 28,
29], are at increased risk for developing
CMM. However, in these patients, rather than inevitably progression of an atypical mole through sequentially higher grades of dysplasia and eventually into melanoma, it is shown that the most likely CMM development occurs on the healthy skin (de novo) or in the clinically typical
328
Ö. F. Dilek et al.
banal mole [19, 20, 3032]. Furthermore, there is only little evidence indicating that the individual dysplastic nevus lesions transform into CMM at any higher rate than banal nevi [21]. This leaves the fundamental question (whether dysplastic nevus represents a premalignant or precursor lesion for CMM) unanswered and leads contro­versies for the management. Currently, it is better known that what really confers to increased risk for CMM are high total mole count and large mole size, both frequently encountered in the familial form [3335]. Despite the ongoing debates and common traditional approximations, behaving atypical moles as precursors for CMM has greatly diminished since they rarely develop into CMM on their own [18, 36].
Identication of the properties of inheritance in hereditary melanoma was greatly accom­plished by Lynch etal. [37] in the early 1980s. Segregation analysis performed by the authors supported the FAMMM syndrome as an autoso­mal dominantly inherited syndrome that displays variable expressivity and reduced penetrance. Phenotypic variations such as cancers other than CMM noted in the FAMMM syndrome also led to identication of an association with pancreatic cancer by Lynch and Fusaro in 1991 [38]. Kaufman etal. described Melanoma Astrocytoma Syndrome (MAS) after identifying concurrent familial CMMs and nervous system tumors in 1993 [39]. Since 1997, the Melanoma Genetics Consortium, GenoMEL, comprised of research­ers worldwide, has been actively working on the genetics of familial CMM.Studies have shown that carrying inherited germline mutations in par­ticular cell cycle regulatory genes such as cyclin­dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) gene on chromosome 12q14 [40, 41] or the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) gene on chromosome 9p21 [42, 43] are considered to be major risk fac­tors for familial melanoma. The frequency of CDKN2A mutations is more common than CDK4 mutations (20–40% versus 2%) in melanoma­prone families [8] and the variable penetrance of these mutations is known to be modied by envi­ronmental factors (e.g., geographic location and sun exposure patterns) [44, 45], melanoma asso­ciated phenotypes and coinheritance of several
specic interleukin-9, glutathione S-transferase theta 1 or melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) vari­ants [46, 47]. MC1R gene, a low-risk melanoma susceptibility gene, partly regulates pigmentation phenotype that may act both dependently and independently of UV radiation to inuence mela­noma risk [48, 49].
NIH identied FAMMM syndrome as a clini­cal phenotype that requires to meet all of the fol­lowing criteria for the diagnosis: (1) occurrence of CMM in one or more rst- or second-degree rela­tives, (2) presence of high total body nevi count (>50) and multiple atypical nevi, (3) specic histo­logic features in nevi, including: asymmetry, sub­epidermal broplasia, lentiginous melanocytic hyperplasia with spindle or epithelioid melano­cytes, variable dermal lymphocyte inltration, and presence of shouldering phenomenon [17].
Management of patients with FAMMM syn­drome has focused on the following issues: (1) intensive dermatologic surveillance at periodic intervals facilitated by diagnostic aids for early detection of CMM; (2) biopsy of suspicious lesions; and (3) preventive measures such as sun protection, self-examination, and nevi reduction for prophylaxis. The frequency of surveillance although depends upon degree of the risk (e.g., number of atypical nevi), however, most authors agree on that 6-month intervals starting from adolescence are adequate [4, 5052]. Documenting a thorough family history of can­cer, especially melanoma or pancreatic cancer is of utmost importance. Screening should also be offered to rst-degree and selected second-degree relatives of the patient. Special attention should be paid to patient’s description of the changes within the preexisting moles and to the newly formed pigmented moles. Moreover, physician should always keep in mind the controversial dilemma: although atypical moles are more likely to undergo malignant transformation when com­pared to banal moles, melanomas of FAMMM syndrome, however, often develop on normal skin. Baseline total body skin examination should include the sun-protected areas, scalp, genitals, oral mucosa, and nails with records of high­quality photographs. Because the patients may have many atypical moles, lesions exhibiting the
29 Prophylactic Surgical Procedures inPlastic Surgery
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
329
so-called “ugly duckling sign” should warrant special attention. Currently, majority of the clini­cians use the standard “ABCDE” rules to evalu­ate pigmented moles. This refers to Asymmetric shape, Border irregularity, Color variability, Diameter greater than 6mm, and Evolution [4]. Patients at risk should also do complete self­examination at every 3months, looking for any perceived changes in shape, borders, color, and size. The patient should be informed about the importance of skin self-examination, which has the potential to detect CMM at earlier stages and reduce mortality [53, 54], and he or she should know the warning signs of the CMM and the pro­phylactics (e.g., sun protection). Such an approach allows detecting melanoma in earlier stages, decreases unnecessary surgical mole removals and makes the patient and the physician psychologically more comfortable [36].
After detailed objective physical examination, recognized atypical moles should be evaluated by dermoscopy, a noninvasive technique that allows for inspection of skin lesions unobstructed by skin surface reections with a high diagnostic accuracy (80–90%) [4]. Although ongoing con­troversies about their cost-effectiveness [55], more advanced techniques such as total body photography and sequential digital dermoscopy imaging have also been suggested [53] for CMM detection at earlier stages.
Traditionally, atypical moles/dysplastic nevi were considered as precursor lesions to CMM, and it has been common to recommend prophy­lactic removal of these atypical-appearing moles [36]. Today, while one group still supports treat­ing atypical moles as “premalignant skin lesions” [56, 57], the others, in contrast, resist this approach since the most CMMs in patients with FAMMM syndrome often develop de novo [19,
58]. Some authors advocate futility of preemptive
removal of stable or benign-appearing moles since this practice has not been shown to reduce the CMM risk meaningfully and associated with increased morbidity and costs (level of evidence, IV) [36, 45]. However, there are some scenarios in which prophylactic removal of the atypical moles can be recommended: lesions with diag­nostic doubts, dealing with only a few [36], or
numerous [59] atypical moles, lacking prior pho­tographic records [60], visually inaccessible lesions during self-examination (e.g., those on genitals, scalp, and back) [36], and having con­current cosmetic goals. Furthermore, prophylac­tic surgery may be sought by either the patient or the physician with the fear of missing CMM on self-examination or clinic follow-up [59]. It is clear that complete removal of a patient’s nevi will not completely prevent CMM risk because of its propensity to occur de novo or in preexist­ing banal nevi, and the answer for the question “to what extent prophylactic excision would reduce long-term CMM in high-risk patients” remains unclear [59]. On the other hand, in such individuals, any suspicious lesions including changing atypical/banal moles or freckles and non-healing sores should be promptly excised and, in addition to appropriate surgical margin clearance, further surgical interventions such as sentinel lymph node sampling should be completed.
The association between pancreatic cancer and FAMMM syndrome has become evident, with an estimated risk 13–22 times higher than that of the normal population. It also multiplies in patients with mutated CDKN2A [50, 61]. This makes pancreatic cancer the second most com­mon malignancy in the FAMMM syndrome patients with the mutation as well [62].
MAS syndrome associated nervous system tumors are extremely rare and may be linked to young age (<30) astrocytomas, peripheral nerve sheath tumors or meningiomas, which may or may not precede the formation of CMM [45, 63].
The role of genetic testing in familial mela­noma is controversial, since the dermatological surveillance does not require much knowledge of the patient’s CDKN2A gene mutation status. However, knowing the inherited CDKN2A muta­tion can offer predictions associated with pancre­atic cancer risk, and therefore it may help providing early measures for such a malignancy that needs to be diagnosed earlier for the best prognosis. American Academy of Dermatology makes recommendation for genetic counseling referral according to individual status in the following criteria [64]: incidence of CMM in the
330
Ö. F. Dilek et al.
geographic location, the number of primary CMM in the patient, and the number of individu­als with CMM in the family. Thus, at least, physi­cian should consider genetic testing in situations in which CMM is diagnosed at young age, mul­tiple primary CMM diagnosed in the same indi­vidual, existence of multiple relatives with CMM and other type of signicant cancer (e.g., pancre­atic cancer) history in the family.
29.2.2 BAP-1 Tumor Syndrome
BAP-1 tumor syndrome, described by Wiesner in 2011 [65], is considered as an autosomal dominant syndrome caused by germline mutations in BAP-1 (BRCA1-associated protein-1) on chromosome 3, which can give rise to several cancers including CMM, uveal melanoma, malignant mesothelioma, renal cell carcinoma, and somewhat specic lesions called melanocytic BAP-1 mutated atypi­cal intradermal tumors (MBAITs) [66, 67]. While MBAITs clinically resemble well-circumscribed, dome-shaped, reddish- brown to skin-colored benign intradermal nevi, histologically they exhibit aggressiveness similar to nevoid melano­mas or atypical Spitz tumors [67, 68]. Although there is no sufcient evidence indicating their malignancy, in addition to at least biannual derma­tological and annual ophthalmological surveil­lance, patients who have MBAITs with atypia or evolution should undergo prophylactical excision given that these patients tend to have more aggres­sive malignancies with higher tumor staging and metastasis risk (level 4 evidence) [67].
29.2.3 Cowden Syndrome
Cowden syndrome (CS), a member of PTEN (the phosphatase and tensin homolog) hamartoma tumor syndrome, is a multi-system disease in which germline PTEN gene mutations cause benign overgrowths of numerous tissues (e.g., gastrointestinal polyps, trichilemmomas, lipomas, mucocutaneous neuromas, oral papilloma, and vascular anomalies) and increased risk for malig­nancies of a number of the organs including breast
(most common), thyroid, endometrium, and colon [69]. Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), or carcinoma of Merkel can rarely be seen as malignant skin manifestation of CS [70]. However, more recently, even if yet not included in the diagnostic criteria of the CS, it has been postulated that the CS patients tend to have increased risk for CMM [71, 72]. Although cur­rent guideline recommends dermatologic surveil­lance only if needed, CS patients frequently seek care for many of their socially disabling benign skin manifestations. Some authors recommend dermatologic surveillance at the time of the diag­nosis and repeatedly based on the individual needs [73] that may require prophylactic excision of suspicious lesions.
29.2.4 Gorlin–Goltz Syndrome
Gorlin–Goltz syndrome (GGS) is a rare autoso­mal dominant neurocutaneous syndrome with well-dened diagnostic criteria [74]. Studies have shown GGS be resulted from mutations in PTCH1, PTCH2, or SUFU genes which encode hedgehog signaling pathway for growth control and tissue differentiation [75]. Early onset BCCs, palmoplantar pits, odontogenic keratocytes, medulloblastoma, and calcication of falx cerebri constitute some of the hallmark disorders of the GGS (Fig.29.2). Patients with GGS may develop from a few to several hundreds of BCCs during their lifetime. This warrants special attention for dermatologic surveillance. Although new promis­ing medical therapy modalities are available in treatment options [76], surgical excision is still mainstay of the curative treatment of suspicious lesions and newly occurring or recurrent BCCs.
Similar to GGS, both very rare genodermato­ses, Bazex-Dupré-Christol Syndrome (BDCS) and Rombo Syndrome (RS) possess early onset BCC as a common malignant skin manifestation. Apart from BCCs, BDCS exhibits hypotrichosis, follicular atrophoderma, hypohidrosis, and milia. While males have a propensity of having more severe symptoms, lack of evidence of male-to­male transmission has led to the consideration that BDCS is inherited in a dominant X-linked
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025