Haifeng Gu1, Jundong Li, Yangkui Gu, Hua Tu, Yun Zhou, Jihong Liu. 1. *Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre; †State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; ‡Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; and §Microinvasive Interventional Department, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to investigate the survival impact of ovarian preservation in surgically treated patients with early-stage endometrial cancer using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Major online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, as well as Grey Literature database, were searched to collect studies on the effects of ovarian preservation compared with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) for surgical treatment in endometrial cancer patients. The literature search was performed up to April 2016. The results were analyzed using RevMan 5.0 software and Stata/SE 12.0 software. RESULTS: Totally, 7 retrospective cohort studies including 1419 patients in ovarian preservation group and 15,826 patients in BSO group were enrolled. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the patients treated with ovarian preservation and BSO (hazards ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.39; P = 1.00). Similar result was achieved in the young and premenopausal women (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.39; P = 0.39). Furthermore, the disease-free survival of patients whose ovaries were preserved was slightly compromised but with no statistical significance (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.56-3.93; P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian preservation may be safe in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, and it could be cautiously considered in treating young and premenopausal women because it is not associated with an adverse impact on the patients' survival. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, further well-designed randomized controlled trial are needed to confirm and update this analysis.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to investigate the survival impact of ovarian preservation in surgically treated patients with early-stage endometrial cancer using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Major online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, as well as Grey Literature database, were searched to collect studies on the effects of ovarian preservation compared with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) for surgical treatment in endometrial cancerpatients. The literature search was performed up to April 2016. The results were analyzed using RevMan 5.0 software and Stata/SE 12.0 software. RESULTS: Totally, 7 retrospective cohort studies including 1419 patients in ovarian preservation group and 15,826 patients in BSO group were enrolled. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the patients treated with ovarian preservation and BSO (hazards ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.39; P = 1.00). Similar result was achieved in the young and premenopausal women (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.39; P = 0.39). Furthermore, the disease-free survival of patients whose ovaries were preserved was slightly compromised but with no statistical significance (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.56-3.93; P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian preservation may be safe in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, and it could be cautiously considered in treating young and premenopausal women because it is not associated with an adverse impact on the patients' survival. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, further well-designed randomized controlled trial are needed to confirm and update this analysis.
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: Nicole Concin; Carien L Creutzberg; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan A Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio González-Martín; Sigurd F Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile E O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina E Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke M Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Xavier Matias-Guiu Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.064