Oncologic and pregnancy outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for stage I, low-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer

Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe population-level utilization of fertility-sparing surgery and outcome of reproductive-aged patients with early epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent fertility-sparing surgery in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective study queried the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program. The study included 3,027 patients younger than age 50 years with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer receiving primary surgical therapy from 2007 to 2020. Fertility-sparing surgery was defined as preservation of one ovary and the uterus for unilateral lesion and preservation of the uterus for bilateral lesions. Temporal trend of fertility-sparing surgery was assessed with linear segmented regression with log-transformation. Overall survival associated with fertility-sparing surgery was assessed with Cox proportional hazard regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 534 patients (17.6%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. At the cohort level, the utilization of fertility-sparing surgery was 13.4% in 2007 and 21.8% in 2020 ( P for trend=.009). Non-Hispanic White individuals (2.8-fold), those with high-grade serous histology (2.2-fold), and individuals with stage IC disease (2.3-fold) had a more than twofold increase in fertility-sparing surgery utilization during the study period (all P for trend<.05). After controlling for the measured clinicopathologic characteristics, patients who received fertility-sparing surgery had overall survival comparable with that of patients who had nonsparing surgery (5-year rates 93.6% vs 92.1%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI, 0.57-1.35). This survival association was consistent in high-grade serous (5-year rates 92.9% vs 92.4%), low-grade serous (100% vs 92.2%), clear cell (97.5% vs 86.1%), mucinous (92.1% vs 86.6%), low-grade endometrioid (95.7% vs 97.7%), and mixed (93.3% vs 83.7%) histology (all P >.05). In high-grade endometrioid tumor, fertility-sparing surgery was associated with decreased overall survival (5-year rates 71.9% vs 93.8%, adjusted hazard ratio 2.90, 95% CI, 1.09-7.67). Among bilateral ovarian lesions, fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with overall survival (5-year rates 95.8% vs 92.5%, P =.364). Among 41,914 patients who had epithelial ovarian cancer with any age and stage, those younger than age 50 years with stage I disease increased from 8.6% to 10.9% during the study period ( P for trend=.002).

CONCLUSION

Nearly one in five reproductive-aged patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer underwent fertility-sparing surgery in recent years in the United States. More than 90% of reproductive-aged patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent fertility-sparing surgery were alive at the 5-year timepoint, except for those with high-grade endometrioid tumors.

Safety of fertility-sparing surgery in young women with stage I endometrioid epithelial and mucinous ovarian cancer: A population-based analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the safety of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) in stage I endometrioid epithelial cancer (EEOC) and mucinous ovarian cancer (MOC).

METHODS

A retrospective case‒controlled study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, focusing on stage I EEOC and MOC between 2000 and 2016. The effects of FSS on overall survival (OS) were compared using log-rank tests. Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed to control for confounders.

RESULTS

The study identified 970 patients with FIGO stage I EEOC and 810 with stage I MOC. Of these patients, 116 (12.0%) EEOC and 268 (33.1%) MOC patients underwent fertility-sparing surgery. The results showed that patients with G3 EEOC had a worse 5-year OS than patients with G1 EEOC (96.1% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.020). IC stage MOC patients had a worse prognosis than IA and IB stage patients (94.9% vs. 88.7%, p = 0.001). FSS did not significantly affect the 5-year OS of patients with EEOC (94.8% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.687) or MOC (95.9% vs. 92.3%, p = 0.071). Further subgroup analysis according to tumor stage and histological grade did not show a worse OS with FSS in stage I EEOC or MOC patients, even with high-risk types such as G3 histology and IC phase. In a multivariable analysis, the application of FSS was not associated with inferior OS in EEOC or MOC.

CONCLUSIONS

FSS for patients with stage I EEOC or MOC does not lead to worse outcomes than radical surgery, making it a viable option for young patients with early-stage disease wishing to preserve fertility.

All-cause and cancer-specific mortality after fertility-sparing surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare all-cause and cancer-specific mortality between women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) versus standard surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Reproductive aged patients (18-45) with stage IA or IC epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. FSS was defined as retention of the contralateral ovary and the uterus, and standard surgery included at least removal of both ovaries and the uterus. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to create two groups balanced on covariates of interest. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to model survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1119 women who met inclusion criteria, 390 (34.9%) underwent FSS. IPTW yielded a balanced cohort of 394 women who underwent FSS and 723 women who underwent standard surgery. Among patients who underwent FSS, there were 45 deaths corresponding to an 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.92) 10-year all-cause survival probability, compared to 81 deaths and 86.4% 10-year all-cause survival probability (95% CI 0.83-0.90) among patients who underwent standard surgery. FSS was not associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.72-1.49) or cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.50, 95%CI 0.97-2.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Among reproductive-aged patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with an increased risk of death compared to standard surgery.

Ovarian preservation in gynecologic oncology: current indications and techniques

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Early menopause represents a relevant clinical issue for women. Nevertheless, this issue should be balanced with the risks of ovarian metastasis, ovarian recurrence, and the risk of recurrence in hormone-sensitive gynecological cancers. The purpose of this review was to provide an overview on current indications and techniques of ovarian preservation in patients with gynecological cancers.

RECENT FINDINGS

The potential discussion about ovarian conservation could be proposed to patients with FIGO-stage IA grade 1-2 endometrioid endometrial cancer aged 40 years or less, FIGO-stage IB1-IB2 node-negative cervical cancer with squamous cell carcinoma and HPV-associated adenocarcinoma, FIGO-stage IA-IC grade 1-2 serous, endometrioid, mucinous expansile pattern ovarian cancer, any stage germ cell ovarian tumors, and FIGO-stage IA sex cord-stromal tumors. Technique to perform ovarian transposition in cervix cancer is also reported.

SUMMARY

Ovarian conservation is a surgical approach that involves preserving one or both ovaries during the treatment of gynecologic cancers. This approach has gained popularity in recent years, as it offers several benefits to the patient, including the preservation of hormonal function and fertility. The decision to perform ovarian conservation depends on several factors, such as the stage and type of cancer, the patient's age, fertility desire, and should be carefully discussed with patients.