No abstract

OBJECTIVEThe objectives of this study were to evaluate the rates of recurrence, survival and pregnancy, and characterize pregnancy outcomes of early-stage cervical cancer(eCC) treated with fertility-sparing methods such as cervical conization (CON) and radical trachelectomy(RT) with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy.STUDY DESIGNThis was a meta-analysis of observational studies analyzed by a random-effects model and a meta-regression to assess heterogeneity.RESULTSSixty observational studies encompassing 2,854 patients were included; 17 of which evaluated CON and 43 RT. Three hundred and seventy-five patients were included in the CON group: 176(46.9%) stage IA1 and 167(44.5%) stage IB1. In the RT group, 2479 cases were included: 143(6.0%) stage IA1, 299(12.1%) stage IA2, 1987(79.9%) stage IB1. CON was performed in 347(92.5%) cases, resulting in a recurrence rate of 0.4%(95%CI: 0.0%-1.4%), a death rate of 0%(0%-0%), a pregnancy rate of 36.1%(26.4%-46.2%), a spontaneous abortion rate of 14.8%(9.3%-21.2%) and a preterm delivery rate of 6.8%(1.5%-15.5%). For the RT group, 2273(91.7%) underwent successful surgeries with a recurrence rate of 2.3%(1.3%-3.4%),a death rate of 0.7%(0.3%-1.1%), a pregnancy rate of 20.5%(16.8%-24.5%), a spontaneous abortion rate of 24.0%(18.8%-29.6%) and a preterm delivery rate of 26.6%(19.6%-34.2%). From a subgroup analysis, the recurrence rates for stage IA tumors treated with CON and RT were 0.4%(0.0%-1.9%) and 0.7%(0.0%-2.3%), respectively; and for stage IB were 0.6%(0.0%-2.7%) and 2.3%(0.9%-4.1%).CONCLUSIONFertility-sparing treatment including CON or RT for eCC is feasible and carefully selected women can preserve fertility and achieve pregnancy resulting in live births. CON seems to result in better pregnancy outcomes than RT with similar rates of recurrence and mortality.

ObjectiveTo compare fertility-sparing therapies including oral progestogens, hysteroscopic resection (HR), and the levonorgestrel- releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in achieving disease regression, recurrence and live birth rate in well differentiate early-stage endometrial carcinoma (eEC) and complex atypical hyperplasia(CAH).Study DesignThis was a meta-analysis of previous studies focus on the fertility-sparing therapy for well differentiate early-stage endometrial carcinoma (eEC) and complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH).Date SourcesMedline, the Cochrane Library and Embase was searched with the terms and Synonyms: words similar to eEC and CAH with therapies associated with fertility-sparing.Main Outcome MeasuresThe number of all patients accepted fertility sparing therapies, patients got regressed, relapsed and delivered were extracted from each study, and the regression, recurrence, and live birth rate of each study were calculated. The regression, recurrence and live birth rates between each two interventions were compared with the aid of meta-regression in packages of “meta” and ”meta for” written in R.ResultsFifty-four studies reported fertility sparing therapies in young women with eEC and CAH were included. Meta-analysis showed that HR followed by progestogens achieved a higher pooled regression (98.06% vs 77.20% P < 0.0001) and live birth rate (52.57% vs 33.38%, P = 0.0944) and a lower recurrence rate compared with oral progestogens alone (4.79% vs 32.17% P = 0.0004). At the same time, the pooled live birth rate (52.57% vs 18.09% P =0.0399) of HR followed by progestogens are significantly higher than the LNG-IUS alone. Which no statistical difference in regression (98.06% vs 94.24%; P = 0.4098) and recurrence rates (4.79% vs 3.90% P = 0.8561) was seen.ConclusionsOf the available fertility-sparing therapeutic options, HR followed by progestogens may be a more effective one.

Background New York City was among the epicenters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncologists must balance plausible risks of COVID-19 infection with the recognized consequences of delaying cancer treatment, keeping in mind the capacity of the health care system. We sought to investigate treatment patterns in gynecologic cancer care during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic at three affiliated New York City hospitals located in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens. Methods A prospective registry of patients with active or presumed gynecologic cancers receiving inpatient and/or outpatient care at three affiliated New York City hospitals was maintained between March 1 and April 30, 2020. Clinical and demographic data were abstracted from the electronic medical record with a focus on oncologic treatment. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was explored to evaluate the independent effect of hospital location, race, age, medical comorbidities, cancer status and COVID-19 status on treatment modifications. Results Among 302 patients with gynecologic cancer, 117 (38.7%) experienced a COVID-19-related treatment modification (delay, change or cancellation) during the first two months of the pandemic in New York. Sixty-four patients (67.4% of those scheduled for surgery) had a COVID-19-related modification in their surgical plan, 45 (21.5% of those scheduled for systemic treatment) a modification in systemic treatment and 12 (18.8% of those scheduled for radiation) a modification in radiation. Nineteen patients (6.3%) had positive COVID-19 testing. On univariate analysis, hospital location in Queens or Brooklyn, age ≤65 years, treatment for a new cancer diagnosis versus recurrence and COVID-19 positivity were associated with treatment modifications. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, hospital location in Queens and COVID-19 positive testing were independently associated with treatment modifications. Conclusions More than one third of patients with gynecologic cancer at three affiliated New York City hospitals experienced a treatment delay, change or cancellation during the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the three New York City boroughs represented in this study, likelihood of gynecologic oncology treatment modifications correlated with the case burden of COVID-19.

No abstract