You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Fertility/Pregnancy
2022-RA-1407-ESGO Variation in outcome reporting in studies of fertility sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review
Free
  1. Nathanael Yong1,
  2. Natalie Cooper2,
  3. Sarah Yorke3,
  4. Chawan Baran4,
  5. Khalid Khan5,
  6. Alex Tan6,
  7. Michail Sideris7,
  8. Stamatina Iliodromiti2 and
  9. Ranjit Manchanda8
  1. 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
  2. 2Women’s Health Division, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University London, London, UK
  3. 3Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  4. 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  5. 5Department of Preventative Medicine and Public Health, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
  6. 6Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
  7. 7Gynaecological Oncology, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  8. 8Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK, London, UK

Abstract

Introduction/Background Cervical cancer affects 3,197 UK-women and 570,000 women worldwide annually, with peak incidence seen between 30–34 years age. For many, fertility-sparing surgery is an appealing option where possible. However, absence of large-scale data, along-with a notable variation in reported outcomes in relevant studies may undermine future efforts for consistent evidence synthesis. We aimed to systematically review the reported outcomes measured in studies that include women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer and identify whether variation exists.

Methodology We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to February 2019. We included randomised controlled trials, cohort and observational studies, and case studies of more than 10 participants from January 1990 to date. We extracted data on study characteristics and all reported treatment outcomes.

Results 104 studies with a sum of 9535 participants were identified. Most studies reported on oncological outcomes (97/104), followed by fertility and pregnancy (86/104), post-operative complications (74/104), intra-operative complications (72/104), and quality-of-life (5). There was huge variation and heterogeneity in reported outcomes, with only 12% being good quality and 87% being of poor quality.

Conclusion There is significant heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. An agreed Core Outcome Set (COS) is necessary for future studies to effectively harmonise reported outcomes that are measurable and relevant to patients, clinicians, and researchers. This systematic-review sets the groundwork for the development of a COS for fertility sparing surgery in cervical cancer.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2022-ESGO.384

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.