Tubal ligation reduces risk of ovarian cancer by up to 70%?

[jd11365]

This is what my ob told me today when we were chatting about the future. I said DH was going to have a vasectomy whenever we decided we were done having children, and he said he felt it was a better decision to have a tubal since there would be an actual benefit for me, and no real benefit for him.

Anyone else hear of this? Makes me think to reconsider future plans if that's the case. I'm terrified of cancer in any form, and a reduction of one type by up to 70% has peaked my interest.

[icunurse]

Here's a link that explains it a little better. The studies are new and slightly limited, but the 60-70% reducation is for those who carry the gene mutation for breast cancer or have a history of ovarian cancer in their family. For people without those two big risks, the decrease is much less (30% I think the article says). I'm not sure what else it involves, but anything that reduces the amount of times you ovulate (thus decreasing the irritation to your ovary lining) is thought to also decrease the risk of ovarian cancer (which is why they say BCP's can help some women, too)

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/update/NWS_1_1xU_Tubal_Ligation_May_Reduce_Ovarian_Cancer _Risk_for_Certain_Women.asp

Traci
~Connor's Mom 02/2004~
Agency paperwork completed - waiting (and waiting) for another baby!

[megs4413]

sounds very interesting. This has been a hot topic around our house lately. There was never a question as to whether or not DH would get snipped but now I am wondering if a tubal is the way to go....might be worth looking into (down the line of course...we're TTC!!!!)

[bostonsmama]

It'll be interesting to see if there are more studies as the years progress. When we're done having children for good (or started for that matter), that highly interests me b/c of all the meds I've been on. Anything to reduce my family history of breast cancer (or potential for ovarian cancer).

On another note, DH will NOT be getting a vasectomy no matter what. I know the studies haven't proven a causal link, but w/ Dh's father's recently diagnosis of prostate cancer after his vasectomy, his grandfathering dying from prostate cancer (as well as great grandfather), each after having vasectomies, and a brother and uncle with it who both had vasectomies, we're not taking any chances! My grandfather had a vasectomy and coincidentally has prostate cancer. I just don't buy that there isn't a link...at least not in OUR family.

Larissa

Baseline appt July 25th! Tentative retrieval ~Aug 10th, transfer ~8/13 or 15

Proud Aunt to Jack Dorian, born to my bro & SIL 3/06
http://www.windsorpeak.com/dc/user_files/32719.jpg

[pampamz]

Wow -- I feel so selfish. In our household it was *assumed* that DH would go for the snip in the very near future because it was a less invasive procedure and just made more sense to us (ok, to me).

I feel like a jerk -- I'll have to check this out in more detail. If there is a link to having a vas. and increased risk of prostate cancer then I'll definately reconsider.

Nice wife I am!

[icunurse]

If you do a search under "vasectomy and prostate cancer" you will find numerous research studies that show no link between the two. While studies are still being done, the overwhelming results as of right now show no direct causal relationship between the two.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/vasectomy

Traci
~Connor's Mom 02/2004~
Agency paperwork completed - waiting (and waiting) for another baby!

[newnana]

This was our (read, my) approach as well! An outpatient procedure and bag of frozen peas for an afternoon for him and much more for me so no way, right? Yes, I'm selfish.

[dules]

I googled the same after reading this thread and agree. Interesting reading though!

Best,
Mary

[Rachels]

It doesn't sound selfish to me to choose the option with the least risk.

-Rachel
Mama to Abigail Rose
5/18/02
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_amethyst_36m.gif
Nursed for three years!

and Ethan James
10/19/05
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/bf.jpg


"When you know better, you do better."
Maya

[jd11365]

Not selfish. I've had the same assumptions. DH was completely on board for a vasectomy when the time was right, but after hearing from my ob, this will be something I/we will look into further. The OB said often women (and men) feel it's the man's "turn" to have a procedure since the women are those giving birth, but we should consider the possible health benefits associated with the tubal. His thought was I have an actual health benefit with a decrease in a type of cancer which can be very aggressive, whereas with my DH, there is no real health benefit. Again, I'm just hearing this for the first time, which is why I've thrown it out there. I'd like to see what comes of it, and we are in no hurry, so for us, it's just food for thought.

[Momof3Labs]

I'm trying to understand why there is a decrease in cancer. Tubal ligation doesn't really remove anything, just, well, disconnect the tubes. The hormones are still flowing and everything else is there, right?

Hmmm...

[MonicaH]

I did a quick pubmed search and found several studies describing a reduced risk of ovarian cancer associated with tubal ligation. HOWEVER, looking at the statistics provided in the abstracts, the link seems to be less clear cut. For example, one of the recently published studies states that the risk reduction after tubal ligation is 21% but the confidence interval is -2% to 38%. From a statistical point of view that means that the "real" value (not just in this set of patients) will be somewhere between -2% and 38% reduction in risk. ie it could be zero reduction. There were several others that I saw with similarly unconvincing statistics.

Sadly, most doctors have little to no understanding of statistics that are reported in medical studies, and just say, 21% reduction without getting the rest of the picture.

Also, I think I'm becoming more cynical thanks to this board ;) ... it's possible that the OB is inclined to believe this link because he stands to make money by performing the procedure. I am NOT saying that he is overtly thinking this. But that the profit motive makes some doctors more inclined to believe medical literature that supports more surgery, intervention, etc. It is very hard to make sure that we are not operating from this subconscious bias.

Well, this sounds like something that is weighing on you and I hope you can find some good information that helps you make a decision you are comfortable with.

Monica

[lisams]

I also did a quick search and found this http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/update/NWS_1_1xU_Tubal_Ligation_May_Reduce_Ovarian_Cancer _Risk_for_Certain_Women.asp

Very interesting stuff! I just don't see how this works. I'm one of those people that has to know how things work to actually believe it, such a skeptic I know, but I do wonder.

[essnce629]

For anyone thinking of undergoing a tubal ligation you might also want to do a quick google search for "post tubal ligation syndrome." More interesting reading and stuff to make you go hmmmm. I first heard about it on these boards as well.

***Latia
Birth and Postpartum Doula

Conner 8/19/03 (homebirthed water baby)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/aug2003angel
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_sapphire_24m.gif Self-weaned at 24 months!

[starrynight]

But did your OB mention the very strong chance of post tubal ligation syndrome? I know a few women that had a lot of problems post tubal. Heavier periods and other hormonal issues. The cancer decrease doesn't make any sense to me at all. FWIW dh had a vas done because I was very afraid of post tubal issues, I have enough to worry about and was too nervous to make things worse.