Jiangxin Sheng1, Yunhua Yi1, Jichan Nie1. 1. Department of Gynecology, Shanghai Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
Background: The effect of ovarian-sparing surgery versus ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ovary preservation versus ovariectomy on the prognosis of patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted of the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and China Science Periodical Database. The subjects of the literature study were patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. The literature compared the prognostic impact of ovary-sparing versus ovariectomy surgery. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. The Chi-square test was used to test the heterogeneity of the articles, and the random-effects model was used if the results indicated heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the source of heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity among the articles, a fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger test. Results: A total of 3,467 patients with stage IA-IB cervical adenocarcinoma from 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 995 had ovarian preservation and 1,895 had ovariectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.14). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year progression free survival (PFS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.11). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.48). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year OS, PFS and DSS between ovarian-sparing surgery and oophorectomy for early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify this conclusion. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: The effect of ovarian-sparing surgery versus ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ovary preservation versus ovariectomy on the prognosis of patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted of the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and China Science Periodical Database. The subjects of the literature study were patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. The literature compared the prognostic impact of ovary-sparing versus ovariectomy surgery. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. The Chi-square test was used to test the heterogeneity of the articles, and the random-effects model was used if the results indicated heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the source of heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity among the articles, a fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger test. Results: A total of 3,467 patients with stage IA-IB cervical adenocarcinoma from 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 995 had ovarian preservation and 1,895 had ovariectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.14). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year progression free survival (PFS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.11). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.48). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year OS, PFS and DSS between ovarian-sparing surgery and oophorectomy for early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify this conclusion. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Hiroko Machida; Max P Horowitz; Mian M K Shahzad; Saketh R Guntupalli; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Katie A Ashton; James Scurry; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Suzanne M Garland; Geoffrey Otton; Nikola A Bowden Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2015-04-11