Salpingo-oophorectomy Versus Cystectomy in Patients with Borderline Ovarian Tumors: a Systemic Review and Meta-analysis on Postoperative Recurrence and Fertility

Overview

Journal World J Surg Oncol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Surgery
Oncology

Date 2021 Apr 22

PMID 33882931

Citations 3

Authors

Peng Wang

Lei Fang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: To compare the postoperative recurrence and fertility in patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) who underwent different surgical procedures: salpingo-oophorectomy versus cystectomy.

Methods: Potentially relevant literature from inception to Nov. 06, 2020, were retrieved in databases including Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE (Pubmed). We applied the keywords "fertility-sparing surgery," or "conservative surgery," or "cystectomy," or "salpingo-oophorectomy," or "oophorectomy," or "adnexectomy," or "borderline ovarian tumor" for literate searching. Systemic reviews and meta-analyses were performed on the postoperative recurrence rates and pregnancy rates between patients receiving the two different surgical methods. Begger's methods, Egger's methods, and funnel plot were used to evaluate the publication bias.

Result: Among the sixteen eligible studies, the risk of recurrence was evaluated in all studies, and eight studies assessed the postoperative pregnancy rates in the BOT patients. A total of 1839 cases with borderline ovarian tumors were included, in which 697 patients (37.9%) received unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and 1142 patients (62.1%) underwent unilateral/bilateral cystectomy. Meta-analyses showed that BOT patients with unilateral/bilateral cystectomy had significantly higher recurrence risk (OR=2.02, 95% CI: 1.59-2.57) compared with those receiving unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Pooled analysis of four studies further confirmed the higher risk of recurrence in patients with cystectomy (HR=2.00, 95% CI: 1.11-3.58). In addition, no significant difference in postoperative pregnancy rate was found between patients with the two different surgical procedures (OR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.60-1.42).

Conclusion: Compared with the unilateral/bilateral cystectomy, the unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy significantly reduces the risk of postoperative recurrence in patients with BOT, and it does not reduce the pregnancy of patients after surgery.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021238177.

Citing Articles

A new risk algorithm combining D-dimer and HE4 differentiates borderline tumor from patients with ovarian tumor.

Zhang M, Zhang Y, Liu G, Ge L Transl Cancer Res. 2025; 14(1):93-101.

PMID: 39974418 PMC: 11833360. DOI: 10.21037/tcr-24-1276.

Spontaneous pregnancy after thread-embedding therapy treatment with premature ovarian insufficiency after unilateral oophorectomy: a case report.

Zhang Z, Yuan J, Zhao J, Song Y, Ni J Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1357824.

PMID: 38737764 PMC: 11082310. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1357824.

Fertility-sparing surgery in children and adolescents with borderline ovarian tumors: a retrospective study.

Zhao J, Wang D, Wang R, He Y, Jia C, Pan L J Ovarian Res. 2024; 17(1):96.

PMID: 38720349 PMC: 11077773. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-024-01409-0.

Conservative treatment of borderline ovarian tumors: a retrospective study.

Vaduva C, Constantinescu C, tenovici M, Boldeanu L, Istrate-Ofiteru A Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2023; 64(2):143-150.

PMID: 37518870 PMC: 10520401. DOI: 10.47162/RJME.64.2.03.

References

Frega A, Coluccia A, Di Martino G, Catalano A, Milazzo G, Assorgi C . Borderline ovarian tumors, fertility-sparing surgery and pregnancy outcome. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014; 18(2):281-4. View

Song T, Choi C, Park H, Kim M, Lee Y, Kim T . Fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: oncologic safety and reproductive outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 21(4):640-6. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182129842. View

Chen R, Li J, Zhu T, Yu H, Lu X . Fertility-sparing surgery for young patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs): single institution experience. J Ovarian Res. 2016; 9:16. PMC: 4797121. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-016-0226-y. View

Skirnisdottir I, Garmo H, Wilander E, Holmberg L . Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960-2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008; 123(8):1897-901. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.23724. View

Song T, Lee Y, Choi C, Kim T, Lee J, Bae D . Borderline ovarian tumor in women aged ≥ 65 years: impact on recurrence and survival. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 184:38-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.10.001. View

Lin J, Seo S, Kushner D, Rose S . The role of appendectomy for mucinous ovarian neoplasms. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 208(1):46.e1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.863. View

Hauptmann S, Friedrich K, Redline R, Avril S . Ovarian borderline tumors in the 2014 WHO classification: evolving concepts and diagnostic criteria. Virchows Arch. 2016; 470(2):125-142. PMC: 5298321. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-016-2040-8. View

Fang C, Zhao L, Chen X, Yu A, Xia L, Zhang P . The impact of clinicopathologic and surgical factors on relapse and pregnancy in young patients (≤40 years old) with borderline ovarian tumors. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1):1147. PMC: 6249857. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4932-2. View

Barani M, Bilal M, Sabir F, Rahdar A, Kyzas G . Nanotechnology in ovarian cancer: Diagnosis and treatment. Life Sci. 2020; 266:118914. DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118914. View

10.

Smaldone G, Richard S, Edwards R . Pregnancy outcomes after conservative surgical management of ovarian neoplasms treated at a single institution. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010; 20(6):926-31. DOI: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181e5c45a. View

11.

Swanton A, Bankhead C, Kehoe S . Pregnancy rates after conservative treatment for borderline ovarian tumours: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007; 135(1):3-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.05.011. View

12.

Lalwani N, Shanbhogue A, Vikram R, Nagar A, Jagirdar J, Prasad S . Current update on borderline ovarian neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(2):330-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3936. View

13.

Hart W . Borderline epithelial tumors of the ovary. Mod Pathol. 2005; 18 Suppl 2:S33-50. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3800307. View

14.

Uzan C, Muller E, Kane A, Rey A, Gouy S, Bendiffallah S . Prognostic factors for recurrence after conservative treatment in a series of 119 patients with stage I serous borderline tumors of the ovary. Ann Oncol. 2013; 25(1):166-71. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt430. View

15.

Silva E, Gershenson D, Malpica A, Deavers M . The recurrence and the overall survival rates of ovarian serous borderline neoplasms with noninvasive implants is time dependent. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006; 30(11):1367-71. DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000213294.81154.95. View

16.

Ureyen I, Karalok A, Tasci T, Turkmen O, Boran N, Tulunay G . The Factors Predicting Recurrence in Patients With Serous Borderline Ovarian Tumor. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015; 26(1):66-72. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000568. View

17.

Suh-Burgmann E . Long-term outcomes following conservative surgery for borderline tumor of the ovary: a large population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 103(3):841-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.05.014. View

18.

Yinon Y, Beiner M, Gotlieb W, Korach Y, Perri T, Ben-Baruch G . Clinical outcome of cystectomy compared with unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as fertility-sparing treatment of borderline ovarian tumors. Fertil Steril. 2007; 88(2):479-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.128. View

19.

Kanat-Pektas M, Ozat M, Gungor T, Dikici T, Yilmaz B, Mollamahmutoglu L . Fertility outcome after conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a single center experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010; 284(5):1253-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-010-1804-7. View

20.

Poncelet C, Fauvet R, Boccara J, Darai E . Recurrence after cystectomy for borderline ovarian tumors: results of a French multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13(4):565-71. DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2006.12.024. View