Long-term survival of young women receiving fertility-sparing surgery for ovarian cancer in comparison with those undergoing radical surgery

• Published in: British journal of cancer Vol. 105; no. 9; pp. 1288 - 1294
• Main Authors: Kajiyama, H, Shibata, K, Mizuno, M, Umezu, T, Suzuki, S, Nawa, A, Kawai, M, Nagasaka, T, Kikkawa, F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 25.10.2011; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 692/699/67/1517/1709; 692/700/1750; 692/700/565/545; Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Cancer Research; Clinical Study; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Resistance; Epidemiology; Female; Female genital diseases; Fertility Preservation; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Medical sciences; Molecular Medicine; Neoplasm Staging; Oncology; Ovarian Neoplasms - mortality; Ovarian Neoplasms - pathology; Ovarian Neoplasms - surgery; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies; Survival Rate; Tumors; overall survival; fertility-sparing surgery; epithelial ovarian cancer; disease-free survival; grade; Human; Ovary carcinoma; Ovary cancer; Malignant tumor; Long term; Female genital diseases; Ovarian diseases; Cancerology; Treatment; Fertility; Surgery; Young adult; Disease free survival; Comparative study; Cancer
• ISSN: 0007-0920; 1532-1827
• DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.394

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcome of patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who received with fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) with those who underwent radical surgery (RS). Methods: After a central pathological review and search of the medical records from multiple institutions, a total of 572 patients were retrospectively evaluated. All patients were divided into three groups: group A {FSS ( n =74); age, ⩽40}; groups B and C [RS; age, 40⩾{(B), n =52}; 40<{(C), n =446}]. Results: Five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of patients in the groups were as follows: group A, 90.8% (OS)/87.9% (DFS); group B, 88.3% (OS)/84.4% (DFS); group C, 90.6% (OS)/85.3% (DFS), respectively (OS, P =0.802; DFS, P =0.765). Additionally, there was no significant difference in OS and DFS among the three groups stratified to stage IA or IC (OS (IA), P =0.387; DFS (IA), P =0.314; OS (IC), P =0.993; DFS (IC), P =0.990, respectively). Furthermore, patients with a grade 1–2 or 3 tumours in the FSS group did not have a poorer prognosis than those in the RS group. Conclusions: Stage I EOC patients treated with FSS showed an acceptable prognosis compared with those who underwent RS.