Abstract
Some studies have shown increased risks of preterm birth, low birth weight, and cesarean delivery after oncologic treatment; others have shown the opposite. We evaluated the outcomes of pregnancies and deliveries of patients who underwent fertility-preserving surgery (FSS) for early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and examined their perinatal prognosis. This retrospective study included women with a history of stage IA or IC ovarian cancer reported in our previous study. The primary outcome was preterm birth after cancer diagnosis was considered. Secondary outcomes were neonatal morbidity and severe maternal morbidity. Thirty-one children were born to 25 women who had undergone FSS. The mean number of weeks at delivery was 38.7 ± 0.7, and the mean birth weight of infants was 3021 ± 160 g. With respect to pregnancy outcomes, 5 patients had preterm labor and 26 had full-term labor. The delivery mode was vaginal delivery in 18 patients and cesarean delivery in 13. Complications during pregnancy included placenta previa (one case) and pelvic abscess (one case). Except for three preterm infants with low birth weight, there were no other perinatal abnormalities. Pregnancy after fertility preservation in EOC has an excellent perinatal prognosis, although the cesarean delivery rate is high.
1. Introduction
The National Cancer Institute predicted that women younger than 45 years would account for approximately 12% of the predicted 21,410 new cases of ovarian cancer in 2021 in the United States [1]. As childbirth is increasingly delayed [2], the likelihood that a woman will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and have a current or future desire to conceive also increases [3], and fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) is considered safe for carefully selected women with early-stage ovarian cancer [4,5]. Although a fertility-sparing treatment approach has a positive effect on quality of life [6,7], cancer survivors are less likely to conceive than their peers, even when their ability to do so is preserved [8,9], and this may be related to the fear of pregnancy and adverse obstetric outcomes [7].
Some population-based studies have shown increased risks of preterm birth [10,11,12,13,14], low birth weight [11,12,13,14], and cesarean delivery [12] after oncologic treatment; contrarily, others have demonstrated only some or none of these effects [15,16]. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent these studies can be extrapolated to patients with ovarian cancer because the majority of these studies have jointly analyzed all reproductive cancers [10,17] or included a few ovarian cancer patients [10,13], whereas other studies have not stratified patients by cancer type [12,14], or they have focused on survivors of childhood cancers [14,17].
In our previous study, the results suggested that fertility-preserving treatment may be safe for patients with stage IA epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), clear cell carcinoma, and stage IC EOC, with or without adjuvant chemotherapy [18]. We are currently conducting a prospective non-randomized validation study to expand the indications for fertility-preserving treatment for EOC in JCOG 1203 for stage IA, clear cell, stage IC, and non-clear cell cancers [19]. In our previous study [18], we reported that 54 out of 84 (64.3%) patients who tried to conceive became pregnant, and 56 healthy children were born. However, no detailed studies exist on the perinatal period, including the background, means of conception, and pregnancy outcomes in pregnant cases. To evaluate fertility-preserving treatment, assessing both treatment and pregnancy outcomes is necessary. Therefore, the present study aimed to clarify the perinatal outcomes of patients who underwent FSS for EOC, in order to provide useful information for patients receiving this treatment.
2. Materials and Methods
This study was a preplanned secondary analysis of the dataset from a previous retrospective observational study performed between 1995 and 2007 [16]. The previous study was conducted by the Gynecologic Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG-GCSG), and it was a multicenter retrospective observational study examining FSS for stage IA EOC, clear cell carcinoma, and stage IC EOC, with or without adjuvant chemotherapy, at 11 JCOG-GCSG-affiliated institutions. The study was hosted by the Kurume University School of Medicine (institutional review board approval registration number: 17229). Each participating center obtained ethical committee approval. The requirement for informed consent was waived, owing to the retrospective nature of the present study.
We collected the following data on pregnancy outcomes and perinatal outcomes: (1) age (at the beginning of pregnancy (years and months)); (2) height and weight at the time of pregnancy; (3) history of smoking, alcohol consumption, and oral contraceptive use; (4) marital status (never married, married, never remarried after divorce, never remarried after bereavement); (5) number of births, number of pregnancies; (6) age at menarche, menstrual cycle before treatment (regulated, irregular, unknown); (7) histological type (a. serous, b. mucinous, c. endometrioid, d. clear cell, e. others); (8) surgery type; (9) adjuvant chemotherapy (none, yes), chemotherapy regimen, number of cycles; (10) post-treatment menstrual cycle (restored to regularity, irregular but restored, not restored, unknown); (11) marital status after treatment (same as before treatment, married, divorced, bereaved, unknown); (12) time to pregnancy after treatment; (13) forms of pregnancy after treatment (natural pregnancy, methods of assisted reproductive technology (ART); (14) post-treatment period until the start date of ART; (15) date of return of pregnancy after treatment, duration of pregnancy (miscarriage, preterm labor, full-term labor); (16) perinatal events (presence or absence of cervical suture), delivery mode (vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery and indications), course of delivery, and presence or absence and type of uterine contraction inhibitors; (17) maternal complications during pregnancy after treatment (pregnancy-related complications (gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, fetal failure to thrive, abnormal placental position, other maternal complications, and psychiatric disorders) and outcomes; (18) neonatal information (congenital diseases and other complications); and (19) date of last confirmed survival (disease-free survival (date of confirmed recurrence, with or without treatment of recurrence), treatment).
Comparison of continuous variables was performed using Student’s t-test. Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables, as appropriate, for each category size. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, unless otherwise stated. For survival analysis, data on progression-free survival (PFS) were censored from the date of surgery to the date of the last follow-up if disease progression had not occurred. An event was defined as death from any cause, disease relapse, or disease progression. Data on overall survival (OS) were censored from the date of surgery to the date of the last follow-up. An event was defined as death occurring from any cause. Oncologic outcomes, PFS, and OS were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method.
Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and the revised version 2.7.0.
3. Results
We obtained information regarding age, EOC stage, histological characteristics of the tumor, treatment details, and follow-up period from 25 patients in the present study. In 25 patients with unilateral stage I EOC, the distribution of stages was as follows: stage IA, n = 17; stage IC1, n = 2; stage IC2, n = 3; and stage IC3, n = 3. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of patients and tumors. The mean patient age was 26.7 ± 5.9 years (range, 19–39 years). The median follow-up duration was 90 months (range, 18–160 months) from the initial FSS (Table 1).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics and oncologic outcomes (n = 25).
All 25 patients underwent unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Surgical staging included careful inspection and palpation of peritoneal surfaces with biopsies of any suspected lesions and peritoneal washing cytology. No patients underwent endometrial curettage during surgery, although most patients underwent endometrial cytology or biopsy before surgery. If optimal surgical staging required at least omentectomy, in addition to unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, all 25 patients were considered to be optimally staged.
Platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 18 (72%) patients, with a mean number of four cycles (range, three to six cycles). The most common chemotherapy regimens were cyclophosphamide + cisplatin (six of 18; 33.3%), cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + cisplatin (five of 18; 27.8%), and paclitaxel + carboplatin (three of 18; 16.7%). The remaining four patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were administered paclitaxel + carboplatin, cyclophosphamide + carboplatin, irinotecan + cisplatin, and fluorouracil, respectively. Seven (28%) patients received no adjuvant treatment after initial surgery (Table 1).
Recurrence was not identified in any patient during the follow-up period. The median follow-up duration for this group was 79 months. Twenty-five patients showed rates of 100% for 5-year PFS and OS. The median follow-up duration for these patients was 78 months.
In total, 31 children were born to the 25 women after surgery, with or without adjuvant chemotherapy, with a mean interval of 34 (8–48) months from cancer treatment to pregnancy. Five women (20%) in the total cohort who underwent FSS received ART treatment, according to medical records.
The mean maternal age at the time of delivery was 31.7 ± 2.1 years. All deliveries were singleton and occurred at full-term, at a mean gestational age of 38.7 ± 0.7 weeks. Eighteen (58.1%) of the vaginal deliveries were induced, and five of the planned cesarean deliveries were induced. Eight children were delivered via unplanned cesarean delivery. No congenital malformations were registered, and the mean birth weight was 3021 ± 160 g (Table 2). Table 3 and Table 4 provide details on pregnancy-related and fetal outcomes, respectively.
Table 2.
Obstetrical outcomes of 25 women who gave birth (31 children) after FSS.
Table 3.
Pregnancy-related outcomes.
Table 4.
Fetal outcomes.
4. Discussion
Early-stage EOC is a relatively uncommon disease in young women; hence, this study adds to the current body of knowledge by reporting on both the safety and efficacy of FSS. The 100% PFS and OS rates at 5 years were in accordance with previously published data [20,21,22].
Compared to perinatal reports from Japan [23], in this study, women who conceived after FSS for stage IA or IC ovarian cancer did not have an increased risk of preterm birth, delivery of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, neonatal morbidity, or severe maternal morbidity; however, the rates of cesarean delivery were higher. In this study, the cesarean delivery rate was 42%, which is clearly higher than the rate of 18.5% in the general population [23]. In this study, the majority of cesarean deliveries were due to delivery arrest; nevertheless, the apparent reason for this was unclear.
Receipt of chemotherapy did not appreciably affect the proportion of adverse obstetric events. US guidelines have highlighted the importance of discussing fertility preservation with young cancer patients for at least a decade [24,25], but data regarding obstetric outcomes after FSS have been limited. Our study provides encouraging evidence that pregnancy after FSS in stage IA or IC ovarian cancer is generally safe.
Given the rarity of ovarian cancer, even studies that focused on patients with reproductive cancers who conceived included small numbers of ovarian cancer patients [10,26]. A systematic review of obstetric outcomes after reproductive cancers demonstrated that most studies were a case series with few births, and more than one-third of studies did not comment on the viability or gestational age at birth [26]. In another study, women with a history of reproductive cancer had a greater absolute risk of preterm birth than women in a matched control group, but this difference may have been driven by the 28% of cervical cancer survivors who delivered prematurely [10]. Furthermore, we included only patients who conceived after their treatment, unlike prior reports, which included patients who were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy [11], a group that is likely at higher risk of adverse obstetric outcomes, iatrogenic or otherwise. Considering that the preterm birth rate in this study was 16.1% (five patients at 34–36 weeks), our results may be more applicable to women who are contemplating pregnancy after completion of ovarian cancer treatment.
Our results vary from prior data that suggested a possible increase in neonatal complications after treatment for early-stage ovarian cancer [14].
Data that guide the timing of pregnancy after cancer treatment are sparse. It has been suggested that cancer patients—particularly those receiving chemotherapy—postpone conception until 12–24 months after treatment completion [13], given the possible damage to oocytes and prolonged immunosuppression, which could predispose patients to preterm birth, SGA neonates, and miscarriage [27]. In the current study, we did not find that chemotherapy recipients, or those who delivered within a year of diagnosis, had higher frequencies of adverse events, although these analyses were limited by sample size. Hence, these important questions should be investigated in future studies with longer follow-up periods.
This study had several limitations. First, the sample size was small; thus, the results must be interpreted with caution. Moreover, only half of the originally planned number of patients could be analyzed, due to the deliveries at another facility and lack of follow-up data. Second, several patients from more than 20 years ago were included, and there may be discrepancies with current treatment. Finally, the true impact of FSS on pregnancies is not known because only cases that resulted in live births were included, and there are no data on miscarriages.
In conclusion, our study results provide important insights to guide shared decision-making discussions regarding FSS for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer. These data may reassure patients considering FSS that pregnancy after ovarian cancer treatment is not associated with increased rates of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity, although the risk of cesarean delivery is higher.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: S.N.; Data curation: S.N., T.T., T.F., A.S., H.N. (Hidekatsu Nakai), H.N. (Hiroko Nakamura), H.T., K.T., E.O., M.M., Y.T.; Formal analysis: S.N.; Funding acquisition: S.N.; Investigation: All authors; Methodology S.N.; Project administration: S.N.; Resources: All authors; Software: S.N.; Supervision: K.U., N.Y.; Validation: S.N.; Visualization: S.N.; Writing—original draft: S.N.; Writing—review & editing: All authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund of Japan (grant numbers 23-A-17, 26-A-4, and 29-A-3).
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was hosted by the Kurume University School of Medicine (institutional review board approval registration number: 17229). Each participating center obtained ethical committee approval.
Informed Consent Statement
The requirement for informed consent was waived, owing to the retrospective nature of the present study.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program. Cancer Stat Facts: Ovarian Cancer. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html (accessed on 25 January 2021).
- Martin, J.A.; Hamilton, B.E.; Osterman, M.J.K.; Driscoll, A.K. Births: Final Data for 2018. Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 2019, 68, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Luke, B.; Brown, M.B.; Missmer, S.A.; Spector, L.G.; Leach, R.E.; Williams, M.; Koch, L.; Smith, Y.R.; Stern, J.E.; Ball, G.D.; et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology Use and Outcomes Among Women With a History of Cancer. Hum. Reprod. 2016, 31, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melamed, A.; Rizzo, A.E.; Nitecki, R.; Gockley, A.A.; Bregar, A.J.; Schorge, J.O.; Del Carmen, M.G.; Rauh-Hain, J.A. All-Cause Mortality After Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 130, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bercow, A.; Nitecki, R.; Brady, P.C.; Rauh-Hain, J.A. Outcomes After Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Women With Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2021, 28, 527–536.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peate, M.; Meiser, B.; Friedlander, M.; Zorbas, H.; Rovelli, S.; Sansom-Daly, U.; Sangster, J.; Hadzi-Pavlovic, D.; Hickey, M. It’s Now or Never: Fertility-Related Knowledge, Decision-Making Preferences, and Treatment Intentions in Young Women With Breast Cancer-an Australian Fertility Decision Aid Collaborative Group Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 1670–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peate, M.; Meiser, B.; Hickey, M.; Friedlander, M. The Fertility- Related Concerns, Needs and Preferences of Younger Women With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2009, 116, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, E.J.; Stratton, K.L.; Leisenring, W.M.; Oeffinger, K.C.; Sklar, C.A.; Donaldson, S.S.; Ginsberg, J.P.; Kenney, L.B.; Levine, J.M.; Robison, L.L.; et al. Pregnancy After Chemotherapy in Male and Female Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated Between 1970 and 1999: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Cohort. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, R.A.; Brewster, D.H.; Wood, R.; Nowell, S.; Fischbacher, C.; Kelsey, T.W.; Wallace, W.H.B. The Impact of Cancer on Subsequent Chance of Pregnancy: A Population-Based Analysis. Hum. Reprod. 2018, 33, 1281–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mogos, M.F.; Salihu, H.M.; Aliyu, M.H.; Whiteman, V.E.; Sultan, D.H. Association Between Reproductive Cancer and Fetal Outcomes: A Population-Based Study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2013, 23, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melin, J.; Heinävaara, S.; Malila, N.; Tiitinen, A.; Gissler, M.; Madanat-Harjuoja, L. Adverse Obstetric Outcomes Among Early-Onset Cancer Survivors in Finland. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 126, 803–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madanat-Harjuoja, L.M.; Malila, N.; Lähteenmäki, P.M.; Boice, J.D.; Gissler, M.; Dyba, T. Preterm Delivery Among Female Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent and Young Adulthood Cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2010, 127, 1669–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haggar, F.A.; Pereira, G.; Preen, D.; Holman, C.D.; Einarsdottir, K. Adverse Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes Following Treatment of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van der Kooi, A.L.F.; Brewster, D.H.; Wood, R.; Nowell, S.; Fischbacher, C.; van den Heuvel-Eibrink, M.M.; Laven, J.S.E.; Wallace, W.H.B.; Anderson, R.A. Perinatal Risks in Female Cancer Survivors: A Population-Based Analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johansen, G.; Dahm-Kähler, P.; Staf, C.; Flöter Rådestad, A.; Rodriguez-Wallberg, K.A. A Swedish Nationwide prospective study of oncological and reproductive outcome following fertility-sparing surgery for treatment of early stage epithelial ovarian cancer in young women. BMC Cancer 2020, 20, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nitecki, R.; Floyd, J.; Lamiman, K.; Clapp, M.A.; Fu, S.; Jorgensen, K.; Melamed, A.; Brady, P.C.; Kaimal, A.; Del Carmen, M.G.; et al. Outcomes of the First Pregnancy After Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 138, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reulen, R.C.; Bright, C.J.; Winter, D.L.; Fidler, M.M.; Wong, K.; Guha, J.; Kelly, J.S.; Frobisher, C.; Edgar, A.B.; Skinner, R.; et al. Pregnancy and Labor Complications in Female Survivors of Childhood Cancer: The British Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2017, 109, djx056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satoh, T.; Hatae, M.; Watanabe, Y.; Yaegashi, N.; Ishiko, O.; Kodama, S.; Yamaguchi, S.; Ochiai, K.; Takano, M.; Yokota, H.; et al. Outcomes of Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Proposal for Patient Selection. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 1727–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satoh, T.; Tsuda, H.; Kanato, K.; Nakamura, K.; Shibata, T.; Takano, M.; Baba, T.; Ishikawa, M.; Ushijima, K.; Yaegashi, N.; et al. A Non-randomized Confirmatory Study Regarding Selection of Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Patients With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG1203). Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 45, 595–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zapardiel, I.; Diestro, M.D.; Aletti, G. Conservative Treatment of Early Stage Ovarian Cancer: Oncological and Fertility Outcomes. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 40, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fruscio, R.; Corso, S.; Ceppi, L.; Garavaglia, D.; Garbi, A.; Floriani, I.; Franchi, D.; Cantù, M.G.; Bonazzi, C.M.; Milani, R.; et al. Conservative Management of Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Results of a Large Retrospective Series. Ann. Oncol. 2013, 24, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentivegna, E.; Fruscio, R.; Roussin, S.; Ceppi, L.; Satoh, T.; Kajiyama, H.; Uzan, C.; Colombo, N.; Gouy, S.; Morice, P. Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients With an Isolated Ovarian Recurrence After Conservative Treatment of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Review of the Results of an International Multicenter Study Comprising 545 Patients. Fertil. Steril. 2015, 104, 1319–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maeda, E.; Ishihara, O.; Tomio, J.; Sato, A.; Terada, Y.; Kobayashi, Y.; Murata, K. Cesarean Section Rates and Local Resources for Perinatal Care in Japan: A Nationwide Ecological Study Using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2018, 44, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, S.J.; Schover, L.R.; Partridge, A.H.; Patrizio, P.; Wallace, W.H.; Hagerty, K.; Beck, L.N.; Brennan, L.V.; Oktay, K. American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Fertility Preservation in Cancer Patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 2917–2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mogos, M.F.; Rahman, S.; Salihu, H.M.; Salinas-Miranda, A.A.; Sultan, D.H. Association Between Reproductive Cancer and Fetal Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2013, 23, 1171–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madanat-Harjuoja, L.M.; Lähteenmäki, P.M.; Dyba, T.; Gissler, M.; Boice, J.D.; Malila, N. Stillbirth, Early Death and Neonatal Morbidity Among Offspring of Female Cancer Survivors. Acta Oncol. 2013, 52, 1152–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andrade, S.E.; Scott, P.E.; Davis, R.L.; Li, D.K.; Getahun, D.; Cheetham, T.C.; Raebel, M.A.; Toh, S.; Dublin, S.; Pawloski, P.A.; et al. Validity of Health Plan and Birth Certificate Data for Pregnancy Research. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2013, 22, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).