Thursday 16 April 2015

Delta sleep-inducing peptide


Skip Navigation LinksHome > July 2001 - Volume 18 - Issue 7 > Delta sleep-inducing peptide

European Journal of Anaesthesiology:

Delta sleep-inducing peptide

Pollard, B. J.1; Pomfrett, C. J. D.2

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

1Professor of Anaesthesia, University Department of Anaesthesia, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK

2Lecturer in the Neurophysiology of Anaesthesia, University Department of Anaesthesia, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK


Delta sleep-inducing peptide (DSIP) is a naturally occurring substance, which was originally isolated from rabbit brain in 1977 [1]. This curious substance is a nonapeptide that is normally synthesized in the hypothalamus and targets multiple sites including some within the brainstem [2]. 
As its name suggests DSIP promotes sleep and this has been demonstrated in rabbits, mice, rats, cats and human beings [3–5]. In fact DSIP promotes a particular type of sleep which is characterized by an increase in the delta rhythm of the EEG.

DSIP is normally present in minute amounts in the blood. Brain and plasma DSIP concentrations exhibit a marked diurnal variation [6] and there has been shown to be a correlation between DSIP plasma concentrations and circadian rhythm in human beings. Concentrations are low in the mornings and higher in the afternoons. An elevation of endogenous DSIP concentration has been shown to be associated with suppression of both slow-wave sleep and rapid-eye-movement sleep and interestingly also with body temperature [7]. Plasma concentrations of DSIP are influenced by the initiation of sleep [8]. Patients with Cushing’s syndrome suffer from a lack of slow-wave sleep but the diurnal variation in slow-wave and rapid-eye-movement sleep in those patients appears to be similar to that in normal patients [9].

When compared with most other peptides, DSIP is unusual in that it can freely cross the blood–brain barrier and is readily absorbed from the gut without being denatured by enzymes [10,11]. 

DSIP is present in relatively high concentrations in human milk (10–30 ng mL–1). Any mother who has breast-fed her babies will attest to the ability of a feed to induce sleep. However, a feed of artificial milk may have a similar effect, and it is not known whether DSIP concentrations are related to the sleep–wake cycle in human neonates [12].

DSIP has been synthesized
Administration of the synthetic substance does not induce tolerance [13]. 

DSIP can be assayed by several techniques including radioimmunoassay (RIA), enzyme immunoassay and high-performance liquid chromatography with RIA [14–16]. 

DSIP has a half-life in human plasma of between 7 and 8 min [2]. It is degraded in blood, the pathway involving the amino-peptidases [17]. 

A potential drug interaction might therefore be envisaged between DSIP and drugs which inhibit or are themselves metabolized by peptidases.  

Captopril is one such agent and patients currently undergoing treatment with any of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors should probably be excluded from any DSIP treatment protocol until further studies have been undertaken.



DSIP and sleep

The innate controlling mechanisms of sleep have fascinated scientists for generations and many different endogenous compounds have been proposed as controllers of sleep over the years. These include cholecystokinin, prostaglandin I2 and various unknown substances labelled ‘sleep-promoting substances’. Indeed, the majority of humoral mediators seem to have some relation to sleep by, for example, affecting circadian rhythms or arousal states. In some cases, however, it is not clear if the humoral mediator is driving the sleep pattern or responding to the sleep pattern.


Since the discovery of DSIP a number of studies have been undertaken to test the hypothesis that DSIP may be the principal endogenous sleep factor. 

It is reported to increase the ‘pressure to sleep’ in human subjects who have been injected with small doses and this, together with its ability to induce delta-wave sleep, led to its consideration as a treatment for insomnia. A number of studies have examined this use with varied success [18–21].

DSIP has been described as a sleep-promoting substance rather than a sedative.

 There is a modulating effect on sleep and wake functions with a greater activity in circumstances where sleep is disturbed. 
There are minimal effects in healthy subjects who are not suffering from sleep disturbance [22]. 
DSIP is not a night sedation drug which needs to be given just before retiring. 

A dose of DSIP given during the course of the day will promote improved sleep on the next night and for several nights thereafter. 
Despite these clear short-term benefits, however, doubt has been cast on whether or not DSIP treatment will prove to be of major benefit in long-term management of insomnia.

Studies have been undertaken in patients suffering from the sleep apnoea syndrome and from narcolepsy. Unfortunately, no difference in DSIP concentrations has been found between those patients and normal patients [23]. DSIP may, paradoxically, be of use in the treatment of narcolepsy and it is possible that it exerts its effect by restoring circadian rhythms [24]. When single and multiple injections of DSIP were given in a controlled double-blind study, disturbed sleep was normalized and better performance and increased alertness was seen during awake cycles together with improved stress tolerance and coping behaviour [22].



Non-sleep effects


DSIP has been shown to have an anticonvulsant action in the rat. The threshold to NMDA- and picrotoxin-induced convulsions is increased by DSIP [25,26]. 

This anticonvulsant effect may undergo a diurnal variation with greater antiepileptic activity seen at night [27]. 
 DSIP is not unique in possessing a diurnal variation in anticonvulsant activity as melatonin, b-endorphin and dexamphetamine all reduce seizure threshold during the day and it is possible that DSIP simply represents one of the endogenous controls of brain excitability [28]. 
DSIP has an antinociceptive action in mice, an effect which is blocked by naloxone [29].

A neuroprotective effect has been demonstrated in rats subjected to bilateral carotid ligation [30]. 
A reduced mortality was observed together with a reduction in postischaemia function. DSIP also reduced brain swelling in a model of toxic cerebral oedema in the rat [31].

-
DSIP attenuates emotional and psychological responses to stress and also reduces the central amine responses to stress in rats [32]. 

The action of corticotrophin releasing factor on the pituitary gland in the rat is attenuated with a consequential inhibition of pituitary adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) secretion [33]. 
The situation is less clear in man as although one study confirmed this finding [34] another reported no inhibitory effect on the adrenocortical axis to both physiological and stressor stimuli [35].

 DSIP had no effect on growth hormone or prolactin concentrations when administered to human volunteers [36]. 
In one study, infusions of 3 or 4 mg (an enormous dose) had no effect on ACTH levels or on cortisol secretion [35] although in another study DSIP 25 nmol kg–1 significantly decreased ACTH concentrations [36].
DSIP concentrations change during certain psychiatric disorders.

Patients suffering from schizophrenia and depression have lower plasma and cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of DSIP than comparable normal volunteers [37]. 
Concentrations were also inversely correlated with sleep disturbance in those patients.

As might be expected of any substance which is naturally occurring, side-effects are uncommon. 

Normally, concentrations would be very low and therefore the injection of large, probably non-physiological doses might be expected to at least produce some unwanted effect.

No significant side-effects have so far been reported with DSIP. 

In some human studies, transient headache, nausea and vertigo have been reported. DSIP actually appears to be incredibly safe as its LD50 has never been determined because it has never so far proved possible to kill an animal whatever the dose of DSIP administered.

Clinical uses

Clinical uses for DSIP already exist. 

The agent has been used for the treatment of alcohol and opioid withdrawal with some success [38]. 

Clinical symptoms and signs disappear after injection of DSIP although some patients have reported occasional headaches.
DSIP possesses a number of other apparently unrelated properties. 

In hypertensive rats, 200 μg kg−1 day−1of DSIP for 10 days had an antihypertensive effect [39]. 

DSIP has also been reported to possess antimetastatic activity [40]. It may also reduce amphetamine-induced hyperthermia and may be beneficial in some chronic pain conditions [41].
An interesting study reported in 1986 injected DSIP and several analogues of the peptide directly into the cerebral ventricle of rats. 

DSIP did not increase sleep and this was thought to be due to its very rapid metabolism. 

However, two of the analogues did induce sleep but one produced arousal. It would appear therefore that there might be the potential for not only sleep but sleep reversal within the analogues of DSIP [42].
The molecular sites for the action of anaesthetic agents are being identified. 

Volatile agents appear to act on specific sites of the GABA-A and glycine receptors, whereas ketamine and xenon act on the NMDA receptors. 

These sites are reproducible and clearly defined, but what is their natural purpose, as neither volatile anaesthetic agents nor xenon are usually found in physiological systems? It is possible, but has yet to be demonstrated, that DSIP and other neuroactive peptides selectively bind to these regions of GABA-A, glycine and/or NMDA receptors.

Is DSIP of relevance to the anaesthesiologist?

Anaesthesia is physiologically distinct from natural sleep and anaesthetic agents appear to work on receptor mechanisms normally dedicated to the control of brain metabolism. 

Conventional sleep staging does not indicate the depth of anaesthesia; rapid-eye movements (REM) and other characteristics of natural sleep are not seen during anaesthesia. It is possible, however, that anaesthesia is mimicking a natural phenomenon such as hibernation by copying the action of natural neuroactive peptides such as DSIP.
What is the significance of DSIP to anaesthesia? Could DSIP be the body’s natural anaesthetic? Is activation of the DSIP receptors related to the state of anaesthesia? These questions must remain speculative for the present.
Whether or not DSIP is the body’s natural anaesthetic, or a substance closely involved in this process, it may not prove to be possible to administer it in a way which could be regarded as anaesthesia. 
Could it therefore be used as the body’s natural sedative? No studies have been performed to investigate this possible use although it would theoretically seem to have potential.

References

1 Schoenenberger GA, Monnier M. Characterization of a delta-electroencephalogram (-sleep)-inducing peptide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1977; 74: 1282–1286.

2 Graf MV, Kastin AJ. Delta-sleep-inducing peptide (DSIP): an update. Peptides 1986; 7: 1165–1187.

3 Aliautdin RN, Kalikhevich VN, Churkina VI. [Hypnogenic properties of the delta-sleep peptide and its structural analogs]. Farmakol Toksikol 1984; 47: 26–30.

4 Kimura M, Honda K, Komoda Y, Inoue S. Interacting sleep-modulatory effects of simultaneously administered delta-sleep-inducing peptide, muramyl dipeptide and uridine in unrestrained rats. Neurosci Res 1987; 5: 157–166.

5 Susic V. The effect of subcutaneous administration of delta sleep-inducing peptide (DSIP) on some parameters of sleep in the cat. Physiol Behav 1987; 40: 569–572.

6 Banks WA, Kastin AJ, Selznick JK. Modulation of immunoactive levels of DSIP and blood-brain permeability by lighting and diurnal rhythm. J Neurosci Res 1985; 14: 347–355.

7 Friedman TC, Garcia-Borreguero D, Hardwick D et al. Diurnal rhythm of plasma delta-sleep-inducing peptide in humans: evidence for positive correlation with body temperature and negative correlation with rapid eye movement and slow wave sleep. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994; 78: 1085–1089.

8 Seifritz E, Muller MJ, Schonenberger GA et al. Human plasma DSIP decreases at the initiation of sleep at different circadian times. Peptides 1995; 16: 1475–1481.

9 Friedman TC, Garcia-Borreguero D, Hardwick D et al. Decreased delta-sleep and plasma delta-sleep-inducing peptide in patients with Cushing syndrome. Neuroendocrinology 1994; 60: 626–634.

10 Kastin AJ, Banks WA, Castellanos PF, Nissen C, Coy DH. Differential penetration of DSIP peptides into rat brain. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1982; 17: 1187–1191.

11 Banks WA, Kastin AJ, Coy DH, Angulo E. Entry of DSIP peptides into dog CSF. role of physicochemical and pharmacokinetic parameters. Brain Res Bull 1986; 17: 155–158.

12 Graf MV, Hunter CA, Kastin AJ. Presence of delta-sleep-inducing peptide-like material in human milk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1984; 59: 127–132.

13 Ji AX, Li CX, Ye YH et al. Synthesis of delta sleep-inducing peptide (DSIP) and its physiological activity. Sci Sin [B] 1983; 26: 174–185.

14 Graf MV, Kastin AJ, Fischman AJDSIP occurs in free form in mammalian plasma, human CSF and urine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1984; 21: 761–766.

15 Nagaki S, Kato N. Delta sleep-inducing peptide-like material in rat brain as determined by enzyme immunoassay: effect of sleep deprivation. Neurosci Lett 1984; 51: 253–257.

16 Fischman AJ, Kastin AJ, Graf MVHPLC shadowing: artifacts in peptide characterization monitored by RIA. Peptides 1984; 5: 1007–1010.

17 Nyberg F, Thornwall M, Hetta J. Aminopeptidase in human CSF which degrades delta-sleep inducing peptide (DSIP). Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1990; 167: 1256–1262.

18 Monti JM, Debellis J, Alterwain P, Pellejero T, Monti D. Study of delta sleep-inducing peptide efficacy in improving sleep on short-term administration to chronic insomniacs. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1987; 7: 105–110.

19 Schneider-Helmert D. DSIP in insomnia. Eur Neurol 1984; 23: 358–363.

20 Schneider-Helmert D. Effects of delta-sleep-inducing peptide on 24-hour sleep-wake behaviour in severe chronic insomnia. Eur Neurol 1987; 27: 120–129.

21 Bes F, Hofman W, Van Schuur J, BC. Effects of delta sleep-inducing peptide on sleep of chronic insomniac patients. A double-blind study. Neuropsychobiology 1992; 26: 193–197.

22 Schneider-Helmert D, Schoenenberger GA. Effects of DSIP in man. Multifunctional psychophysiological properties besides induction of natural sleep. Neuropsychobiology 1983; 9: 197–206.

23 Vgontzas AN, Friedman TC, Chrousos GP, Bixler EO, Vela-Bueno A, Kales A. Delta sleep-inducing peptide in normal humans and in patients with sleep apnea and narcolepsy. Peptides 1995; 16: 1153–1156.

24 Schneider-Helmert D. Effects of DSIP on narcolepsy. Eur Neurol 1984; 23: 353–357.

25 Shandra AA, Godlevskii LS, Brusentsov AI, Karlyuga VA. Effects of delta-sleep-inducing peptide on NMDA- induced convulsive activity in rats. Neuroscibehavphysiol 1998; 28: 694–697.

26 Brusentsov AI, Moroz VV, Suprun SA, Pomazanova TN, Shandra AA, Godlevskii LS. [Changes in the blastogenic lumphocyte transformation during kindling induced by picrotoxin in rats]. Ross Fiziol Zh Im I M Sechenova 1998; 84: 233–237.

27 Yehuda S, Mostofsky DI. Circadian effects of beta- endorphin, melatonin, DSIP and amphetamine on pentylenetetrazol-induced seizures. Peptides 1993; 14: 203–205.

28 Shandra AA, Godlevskii LS, Mazarati AM, Oleshko AA, Mikhaleva II. The influence of the delta-sleep-inducing peptide on convulsive activity. Neurosci Behav Physiol 1993; 23: 480–485.

29 Nakamura A, Nakashima M, Sugao T, Kanemoto H, Fukumura Y, Shiomi H. Potent antinociceptive effect of centrally administered delta-sleep-inducing peptide (DSIP). Eur J Pharmacol 1988; 155: 247–253.

30 Shandra AA, Godlevskii LS, Brusentsov AI et al. Effects of delta-sleep-inducing peptide in cerebral ischemia in rats. Neurosci Behav Physiol 1998; 28: 443–446.

31 Platonov IA, Iasnetsov VV. [The effect of the delta sleep-inducing peptide on the development of toxic brain edema-swelling]. Biull Eksp Biol Med 1992; 114: 463–464.

32 Sudakov KV, Coghlan JP, Kotov AV, Salieva RM, Polyntsev YV, Koplik EV. Delta-sleep-inducing peptide sequels in the mechanisms of resistance to emotional stress. Ann N Y Acad Sci USA 1995; 771: 240–251.

33 Graf MV, Kastin AJ, Coy DH, Fischman AJ. Delta-sleep-inducing peptide reduces CRF-induced corticosterone release. Neuroendocrinology 1985; 41: 353–356.

34 Chiodera P, Volpi R, Capretti L et al. Different effects of delta-sleep-inducing peptide on arginine-vasopressin and ACTH secretion in normal men. Horm Res 1994; 42: 267–272.

35 Spath-Schwalbe E Schafer A, Uthgenannt D, Born J, Fehm HL. Delta-sleep-inducing peptide does not affect CRH and meal-induced ACTH and cortisol secretion. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1995; 20: 231–237.

Erectile-Dysfunction Drugs Also Give the Heart a Boost.Duh!

Erectile-Dysfunction Drugs Also Give the Heart a Boost, Duh!

Site disclaimer 

While I have some serious reservations about the recent style and content drift that has occurred in many Medscape  reports, I believe this would be a missed opportunity for those with LV Hypertrophy to better understand that there are options in care.
LVH diagnosis, a snap shot test revealing a low ejection fraction and poor access to fully knowledgeable attending physicians was commonly considered by care providers to be unfortunate life limiting prognosis.
 
To be clear about   PDE-5 inhibitors, they were originally researched for their market values as cardiac  medications in general. The disconnect occurred when it was clear that these drugs could be better marketed globally for their short term side effects alone / benefits  in men.
Namely sustainable erections.
There is a  further disconnect within this article. The writer negates the historical reality of the originally known cardiac benefits. 
No light bulb has gone off here.
Ever.
LVH people will just have to wait for the money makers to go generic before you can better access them for their intended use.
If your primary goal is for an arousal  based sex life then there are other options. One choice is Pt-141. This is a self administered, commercially available, legally non prescription and  affordable  peptide.
It works equally well for men and women. It also works without incurring the systemic or circulatory risks of the currently available pharmaceuticals  .

Erectile-Dysfunction Drugs Also Give the Heart a Boost.

Medscape Oct 2014



ROME, ITALY — For individuals with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), long-term use of an erectile-dysfunction drug can prevent cardiac remodeling, while use of these phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors, which include the popular sildenafil (Viagra, Pfizer), can also improve measures of cardiac performance in subjects with a range of clinical diagnoses[1].

Aside from its typical bedroom use, Dr Elisa Gianetta (Sapienza University of Roma, Italy) and colleagues say their "analyses reveal that the ideal target population to benefit from PDE-5 [inhibition] are patients with heart failure and LVH."

Their conclusions are based on a meta-analysis of 24 studies with 1622 individuals, of which 954 were treated with PDE-5 inhibitors and 772 with placebo. Their results are published October 19, 2014 in BMC Medicine.

The erectile-dysfunction drugs have been hypothesized to improve cardiac care outside the urological setting for many years now. In fact, sildenafil was first explored as an antianginal medication before gaining initial marketing approval for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and later for primary pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).

The rationale for evaluating sildenafil in patients with heart failure—as in PAH—stems from observations that PDE-5 is the main enzyme responsible for cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) catabolism in vascular smooth-muscle cells. Chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction is characterized by impaired nitric-oxide (NO)-cGMP-mediated vasodilation in pulmonary and skeletal-muscle circulatory systems.

Benefit Best Among LVH Patients
 
Among the 24 studies included in the meta-analysis were studies administering the PDE-5 inhibitors to patients with heart failure (with and without preserved ejection fraction), diastolic dysfunction after MI, PAH, congestive heart failure, and diabetic cardiomyopathy, among others. The vast majority of patients were treated with sildenafil, while 218 received vardenafil (Levitra, GlaxoSmithKline) and 54 were treated with tadalafil (Cialis, Eli Lilly). Treatment ranged from 4 weeks to 1 year.

In the analysis, markers of cardiac performance improved with long-term use of the PDE-5 inhibitors. Six studies reported data on ejection fraction in 286 patients with left heart disease. In these, all of whom were treated with sildenafil, there was a 3.56% increase in ejection fraction over placebo. The increase in ejection fraction over placebo was 4.38% in patients with LVH. Treatment with PDE-5 inhibitors had no effect on heart rate, and there were no changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, or the systemic vascular resistance index.

The most common side effects of treatment with the drugs were flushing, headache, nosebleeds, and gastric symptoms.

The researchers suggests that PDE-5 inhibitors "could be reasonably offered to men with cardiac hypertrophy and early-stage heart failure." Given that the drugs were tested in men, there is a need for additional studies in women, as well as a long-term study focusing on cardiovascular outcomes, they add.

In 2013, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored RELAX study fell short when sildenafil was tested in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction. In that study, as reported by heartwire , there was no improvement in cardiac performance, hospitalizations, or ventricular remodeling and diastolic function, among other end points.

The authors have reported they have no relevant financial relationships.

Comments from Medscape have been eliminated due to the sites lack of moderation 

Experts Support Jolie's Prophylactic Surgery Decision

Comments attached to med scape articles have been purposefully eliminated due to to the sites lack of moderation.

Experts Support Jolie's Prophylactic Surgery Decision

Zosia Chustecka
March 27, 2015


Experts in gynecologic oncology have spoken in support of Angelina Jolie's decision to have her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed as a move against ovarian cancer.

Such surgery is the "cornerstone of management" in these cases, said Karen Lu, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology, codirector for clinical cancer genetics, and director of the High Risk Ovarian Cancer Screening Clinic at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Dr Lu said that the star is representative of a growing number of women who are making decisions about cancer before they get cancer; they are described as "previvors" (in contrast to survivors who are living after cancer).

These previvors represent a new wave of patients that has never been seen before. These are women who have been genetically tested and found to have a very high risk for cancer, but have not yet been touched by cancer. "This is something new," she emphasized, "as previously we have been dealing with patients who first had cancer and then were tested and found to be at high risk."

Dr Lu also observed that these previvors have a different approach to the choices that are available to them than the average woman, or a woman with some family history of cancer, as they have very specific information about their risk as a result of the genetic testing. She also praised Jolie for speaking up on the issue of BRCA testing and the consequent medical choices available, and felt that it was beneficial for women who are in the same situation — "and there are growing numbers of these women," she noted.
Dr Karen Lu 
 
As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Jolie announced her latest surgery earlier this week in an op-ed in the New York Times. The star is a carrier of the BRCA1 gene mutation, which puts her at 87% risk for breast cancer and 50% risk for ovarian cancer. Two years ago, she underwent a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, and now decided to undergo a prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy at the age of 39. Her mother had died of ovarian cancer at age 49, her grandmother also died from ovarian cancer, and her aunt died from breast cancer.

"Based on what has been reported, including not only the genetic abnormalities, but also the family history of cancer, the decision by Ms Jolie was quite appropriate as a documented effective strategy to decrease the risk for the development of both breast and ovary cancer," 
Maurie Markman, MD, clinical professor at the Drexel University College of Medicine and senior vice president for clinical affairs at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

Given Jolie's superstar status, the news of her latest surgery was widely reported in the media, and many outlets carried comments from medical experts supporting her decision to choose prophylactic surgery.


However, it was also pointed out that prophylactic surgery is an appropriate consideration only for women who are carriers of the BRCA gene mutations, particularly if they have a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Only about 1% of women carry the BRCA gene mutations, although the incidence is higher among individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.

Surgery Greatly Reduces Risk
 
Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy reduces the risk for ovarian cancer by about 85% to 90%, said Dr Lu. Even though both ovaries and fallopian tubes are removed, the risk is not eliminated entirely, because the same cells that develop into ovarian cancer are also found in the lining of the abdominal cavity, she explained. These cells can give rise to primary peritoneal cancer, which she described as a "cousin" of ovarian cancer.

So a small risk remains, but the risk is greatly reduced, Dr Lu said. Carriers of BRCA1 mutations have a greater than 50% risk of developing ovarian cancer; this surgery reduces that risk down to about 5%.

But isn't prophylactic surgery a rather drastic option, considering that it pushes a women into forced menopause, which has medical implications (menopausal symptoms of hot flushes, night sweats, but also increased risk for cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis)? In fact, the word "drastic" was used by several physicians commenting on our earlier report, and they wondered about alternative strategies.

Dr Lu emphasized that "removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes is absolutely the cornerstone of management" for women who are genetically at very high risk for ovarian cancer, and she added that "screening has never been shown to be effective."

One point that she emphasizes to new patients who have tested positive for the BRCA mutations is that there is no rush for surgery. Many of these women are in their 20s when they test positive, she noted, and these decisions about prophylactic surgery don't need to be taken until they are in their mid- or late-30s, or even in their 40s, she said.

In the meantime, they can undergo screening, but even screening for ovarian cancer does not need to begin until mid-30s, she added.

Screening for ovarian cancer is carried out with the CA125 blood test and with ultrasound, both carried out at 6-month intervals. "We do it because these women are at such high risk," but she emphasized that there are no good data to support it and "it is important that these women are not falsely reassured."

An alternative to surgery, described as a "good" option for these women, is use of the oral contraceptive (OC) pill, which reduces the risk for ovarian cancer by 50%. "It cuts the risk in half," Dr Lu commented, so for a women who has a 50% risk for ovarian cancer, use of the Pill reduces the risk to 25%.

Asked about any potential for OCs increasing the risk for breast cancer, Dr Lu said there is a "myth that they do, but there are no data to show that."

There is another option, but this should be done only as part of a clinical trial, Dr Lu said. Her team is currently involved in such a study, and this involves two-stage surgery. At the first stage, only the fallopian tubes are removed, leaving the ovaries intact, which prevents the forced menopause. Then at a second stage, maybe a few years later, the ovaries are removed. The rationale for this two-stage process is that it gives the woman a few more years before enforced menopause, while removing the tissue in which the BRCA-associated ovarian cancer strikes most often. However, Dr Lu emphasized that this is an investigational approach at present, and should be carried out only within the confines of a clinical trial.

The forced menopause that follows this prophylactic surgery is usually treated with some form of hormone-replacement therapy (HRT), Dr Lu said. Although HRT is associated with an increase in the risk for breast cancer, the doses of hormones used are small, and so the overall hormone levels remain very low. "We do use HRT in women who have not had cancer," she said.

This is an important point, and one that has been usefully highlighted by the publicity about Jolie's decision, comments Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, editor-in-chief on women's health at the New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch.

"Many premenopausal BRCA mutation carriers defer risk-reducing gynecologic surgery because they dread the menopausal symptoms that inevitably follow loss of ovarian function. Understandably, such women — many of whom have seen their relatives battle breast cancer — worry that they cannot safely use hormone-replacement therapy (a concern shared by many clinicians)," Dr Kaunitz writes. "Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, evidence shows that BRCA mutation carriers with intact breasts can safely use hormone therapy for at least several years (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1361-1367). In women who have undergone risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, hormone therapy is associated with even fewer safety concerns."

Dr Kaunitz welcomes the publicity that Jolie has attracted about the issue. Two years ago, "her bravery in publicizing her decision to proceed with risk-reducing breast surgery encouraged many women with high-risk family histories to seek out genetic counseling and testing," he writes. "Now, [her] courage in sharing her story of risk-reducing gynecologic surgery should reassure mutation carriers that fear of severe menopausal symptoms need not deter them from making such lifesaving decisions," he adds.