OBJECTIVE: To examine the trends in use and safety of ovarian conservation in young women with early-stage endometrial cancer undergoing hysterectomy. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis. The National Cancer Database was used to identify women younger than 50 years of age with stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium who underwent hysterectomy from 1998 to 2012. Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent oophorectomy or had ovarian conservation. Multivariable models were used to examine predictors of ovarian conservation and the association between ovarian conservation and survival. RESULTS: The cohort of 15,648 women included 1,121 (7.2%) who had ovarian conservation and 14,527 (92.8%) who underwent oophorectomy. The rate of ovarian conservation was relatively stable from 6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9-9.7%) in 1998 to 7.1% (95% CI 5.8-8.7%) in 2012 (P=.91). Ovarian conservation was more commonly performed in younger women, black women, those with low-grade and earlier stage tumors, and in women treated at community hospitals. In a multivariable model, ovarian conservation was not independently associated with survival (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). Similarly, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no association between ovarian conservation and survival (P=.19). CONCLUSION: Ovarian conservation does not adversely affect survival for women with early-stage endometrial cancer. Despite the oncologic safety of ovarian conservation, the majority of young women with endometrial cancer still undergo oophorectomy at the time of surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the trends in use and safety of ovarian conservation in young women with early-stage endometrial cancer undergoing hysterectomy. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis. The National Cancer Database was used to identify women younger than 50 years of age with stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium who underwent hysterectomy from 1998 to 2012. Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent oophorectomy or had ovarian conservation. Multivariable models were used to examine predictors of ovarian conservation and the association between ovarian conservation and survival. RESULTS: The cohort of 15,648 women included 1,121 (7.2%) who had ovarian conservation and 14,527 (92.8%) who underwent oophorectomy. The rate of ovarian conservation was relatively stable from 6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9-9.7%) in 1998 to 7.1% (95% CI 5.8-8.7%) in 2012 (P=.91). Ovarian conservation was more commonly performed in younger women, black women, those with low-grade and earlier stage tumors, and in women treated at community hospitals. In a multivariable model, ovarian conservation was not independently associated with survival (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). Similarly, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no association between ovarian conservation and survival (P=.19). CONCLUSION: Ovarian conservation does not adversely affect survival for women with early-stage endometrial cancer. Despite the oncologic safety of ovarian conservation, the majority of young women with endometrial cancer still undergo oophorectomy at the time of surgery.
Authors: Walter A Rocca; Brandon R Grossardt; Mariza de Andrade; George D Malkasian; L Joseph Melton Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: William H Parker; Michael S Broder; Zhimei Liu; Donna Shoupe; Cindy Farquhar; Jonathan S Berek Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jason D Wright; Adam M Buck; Monjri Shah; William M Burke; Peter B Schiff; Thomas J Herzog Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William H Parker; Michael S Broder; Eunice Chang; Diane Feskanich; Cindy Farquhar; Zhimae Liu; Donna Shoupe; Jonathan S Berek; Susan Hankinson; JoAnn E Manson Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Cathleen M Rivera; Brandon R Grossardt; Deborah J Rhodes; Robert D Brown; Véronique L Roger; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca Journal: Menopause Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Koji Matsuo; James C Cripe; Katherine C Kurnit; Michiko Kaneda; Audrey S Garneau; Gretchen E Glaser; Aaron Nizam; Rachel M Schillinger; Michelle L Kuznicki; Akira Yabuno; Shiori Yanai; Denise M Garofalo; Jiro Suzuki; Jessica D St Laurent; Ting-Tai Yen; Annie Y Liu; Masako Shida; Mamoru Kakuda; Tetsuro Oishi; Shin Nishio; Jenna Z Marcus; Sosuke Adachi; Tetsuji Kurokawa; Malcolm S Ross; Max P Horowitz; Marian S Johnson; Min K Kim; Alexander Melamed; Karime K Machado; Kosuke Yoshihara; Yoshio Yoshida; Takayuki Enomoto; Kimio Ushijima; Shinya Satoh; Yutaka Ueda; Mikio Mikami; Bobbie J Rimel; Rebecca L Stone; Whitfield B Growdon; Aikou Okamoto; Saketh R Guntupalli; Kosei Hasegawa; Mian M K Shahzad; Dwight D Im; Marina Frimer; Bobbie S Gostout; Frederick R Ueland; Shoji Nagao; Pamela T Soliman; Premal H Thaker; Jason D Wright; Lynda D Roman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Hiroko Machida; Rebecca L Stone; Pamela T Soliman; Premal H Thaker; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jennifer J Mueller; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Kenya Braxton; Kaled M Alektiar; Mario M Leitao; Carol Aghajanian; Lora H Ellenson; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: A N Schüring; T Fehm; K Behringer; M Goeckenjan; P Wimberger; M Henes; J Henes; M F Fey; M von Wolff Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 2.344