The impact of opportunistic salpingectomy on ovarian cancer mortality and healthcare costs: a call for universal insurance coverage

Published:March 30, 2021DOI:


      Opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy or as an alternative to bilateral tubal ligation may reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer, because it has been demonstrated that most serous ovarian cancers begin in the fallopian tubes. However, salpingectomy at the time of sterilization is not always financially covered by third-party payers, and this represents a barrier to adoption. Routine salpingectomy has become more common but is not always practiced at the time of hysterectomy.


      This study aimed to determine the impact of opportunistic salpingectomy as an alternative tubal ligation and routine salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy on ovarian cancer mortality and overall cost.

      Study Design

      An 8-state Markov state transition model was constructed, including hysterectomy, tubal ligation, and ovarian cancer. Transition probabilities were informed by previously reported population data and include age-adjusted rates of elective sterilization and hysterectomy. This model was used to predict ovarian cancer incidence and the cost effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy. Testing of this model suggested that it accurately predicted overall life expectancy and closely predicted the rate of hysterectomy in the population. The model may underestimate the rate of tubal sterilization, making it conservative with respect to the benefits of salpingectomy.


      The recursive Markov model was run from ages 20 to 85 years in 1-year intervals with a half step correction and included age-adjusted rates of tubal ligation, hysterectomy (with and without oophorectomy), and ovarian cancer. The model predicts that opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of tubal ligation will reduce ovarian cancer mortality by 8.13%. Opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy will reduce ovarian cancer mortality by 6.34% for a combined decrease of 14.5%. Both strategies are cost effective when considering only the cost of the opportunistic salpingectomy. The excess cost of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of tubal ligation was $433.91 with an incremental cost-effective ratio of $6401 per life-year and $5469 per quality-adjusted life year gained when adjusting for ovarian cancer with a utility of 0.64. The incremental cost-effective ratio for opportunistic salpingectomy during hysterectomy at a cost of $124.70 was $2006 per life-year and $1667 per quality-adjusted life year. When considering the impact of ovarian cancer prevention with respect to the cost of ovarian cancer treatment, opportunistic salpingectomy may produce a substantial healthcare savings. Utilizing a 3% discount rate, it is estimated that the total savings for universal salpingectomy could be as high as $445 million annually in the United States. A sensitivity analysis around the benefit of opportunistic salpingectomy suggests that this procedure will be cost effective even if salpingectomy provides only a modest reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer.


      It is estimated that universal opportunistic salpingectomy may prevent 1854 deaths per year from ovarian cancer and may reduce healthcare costs. Given these data, universal opportunistic salpingectomy should be considered at the time of tubal ligation and hysterectomy and covered by third-party payers.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Siegel R.L.
        • Miller K.D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2020.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70: 7-30
        • Jacobs I.J.
        • Menon U.
        • Ryan A.
        • et al.
        Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2016; 387: 945-956
        • Naumann R.W.
        • Brown J.
        Ovarian cancer screening with the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA): good, bad, or just expensive?.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 149: 117-120
        • Herzog T.J.
        • Dinkelspiel H.E.
        Fallopian tube removal: “stic-ing” it to ovarian cancer: what is the utility of prophylactic tubal removal?.
        Curr Oncol. 2013; 20: 148-151
        • Kurman R.J.
        • Shih Ie-M
        The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34: 433-443
        • Falconer H.
        • Yin L.
        • Grönberg H.
        • Altman D.
        Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015; 107: 1-6
        • Dar P.
        • Sachs G.S.
        • Strassburger D.
        • Bukovsky I.
        • Arieli S.
        Ovarian function before and after salpingectomy in artificial reproductive technology patients.
        Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 142-144
        • Dilley S.E.
        • Havrilesky L.J.
        • Bakkum-Gamez J.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 146: 373-379
        • Social Security Administration
        Actuarial life table. 2016.
        (Available at:)
        Date accessed: October 22, 2017
      1. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. 2017. Available at: Accessed October 22, 2017.

        • American Cancer Society
        Survival rates for ovarian cancer. 2017.
        (Available at:)
        • Whiteman M.K.
        • Hillis S.D.
        • Jamieson D.J.
        • et al.
        Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198: 34.e1-34.e7
        • Novetsky A.P.
        • Boyd L.R.
        • Curtin J.P.
        Trends in bilateral oophorectomy at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 1280-1286
        • MacKay A.P.
        • Kieke Jr BA
        • Koonin L.M.
        • Beattie K.
        Tubal sterilization in the United States, 1994–1996.
        Fam Plann Perspect. 2001; 33: 161-165
        • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physician fee schedule.
        (Available at:)
        • Tew W.P.
        • Lacchetti C.
        • Ellis A.
        • et al.
        PARP inhibitors in the management of ovarian cancer: ASCO guideline.
        J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38: 3468-3493
        • McBride A.
        • Perhanidis J.
        • Gibson C.
        • Wetzstein G.
        Cost comparison of PARP inhibitors in women with ovarian cancer in the US.
        Healthcare Market: JNCCN. 2020; : 18
        • González-Martín A.
        • Pothuri B.
        • Vergote I.
        • et al.
        Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2391-2402
        • Cohn D.E.
        • Kim K.H.
        • Resnick K.E.
        • O’Malley D.M.
        • Straughn Jr JM
        At what cost does a potential survival advantage of bevacizumab make sense for the primary treatment of ovarian cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis.
        J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 1247-1251
        • Ray-Coquard I.
        • Pautier P.
        • Pignata S.
        • et al.
        Olaparib plus bevacizumab as first-line maintenance in ovarian cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2416-2428
        • Powell C.B.
        • 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: 961-967
        • Subramaniam A.
        • Einerson B.D.
        • Blanchard C.T.
        • et al.
        The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 152: 127-132
        • Findley A.D.
        • Siedhoff M.T.
        • Hobbs K.A.
        • et al.
        Short-term effects of salpingectomy during laparoscopic hysterectomy on ovarian reserve: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
        Fertil Steril. 2013; 100: 1704-1708
      2. Committee opinion no. 620: salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 279-281
        • Robert M.
        • Cenaiko D.
        • Sepandj J.
        • Iwanicki S.
        Success and complications of salpingectomy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22: 864-869
        • Daniels K.
        • Daugherty J.
        • Jones J.
        Current contraceptive status among women aged 15–44: United States, 2011–2013.
        NCHS Data Brief. 2014; : 1-8
        • Centers for Disease Control
        Key statistics from the national survey of family growth—sterilization. percentever.
        (Available at:)
        Date: 2017
        Date accessed: May 9, 2020
        • Hanley G.E.
        • Kwon J.S.
        • Finlayson S.J.
        • Huntsman D.G.
        • Miller D.
        • McAlpine J.N.
        Extending the safety evidence for opportunistic salpingectomy in prevention of ovarian cancer: a cohort study from British Columbia, Canada.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 172.e1-172.e8
        • Wilcox L.S.
        • Chu S.Y.
        • Eaker E.D.
        • Zeger S.L.
        • Peterson H.B.
        Risk factors for regret after tubal sterilization: 5 years of follow-up in a prospective study.
        Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 927-933