I have tested positive for the BRCA2 mutation & am considering next steps. I think removing the ovaries & tubes is almost a no-brainer, as I'm past menopause & my BC is estrogen+. (I'll be starting Arimidex soon.) Taking out ovaries/tubes reduces risk of ovarian cancer and also recurrence of BC.

But gyn-onc (very well-respected) recommends also taking out uterus. As far as I can find, BRCA doesn't increase risk of uterine, endometrial, or cervical cancer. It would be laparascopically assisted vaginal procedure.

I'm on the fence as to the extra risks, vs. long-term benefits of the complete hysterectomy. I guess it's true I don't "need" my uterus any more. But it seems drastic, especially in view the large number of "unnecessary" hysterectomies that are supposedly done.  I've had no bleeding, pelvic pain, or other symptoms.  My periods were always regular & fairly easy.  Are there structural issues with "holding things together" in that area?  He says he does a procedure to join the ends of the ligaments to prevent prolapse.

From what I've found so far, experts are split about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the uterus. The major justification for removal seems to be the small remnant of the tubes left attached to the uterus, but supposedly there have not been instances of cancers originating there.  Other than that, I'm not finding too much information on the justifications pro and con.

Maybe my dr. is ahead of the curve for treatment -- or maybe he's overly aggressive?

Comments?

Linda