The impact of excision of benign nonendometriotic ovarian cysts on ovarian reserve: a systematic review.
MetadataShow full item record
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The impact of laparoscopic ovarian drilling on AMH & ovarian reserve: a meta-analysis.Amer, Saad; El-Shamy, Tarek; James, Cathryn (2017-04)Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) has been widely utilised as an effective treatment in anovulatory women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). However, there has been a growing concern over a possible damaging effect of this procedure on ovarian reserve. The objective of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that LOD compromises ovarian reserve as measured by post-operative changes in circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). This meta-analysis included all cohort studies as well as randomised controlled trials investigating serum AMH concentrations and other ovarian reserve markers in PCOS women undergoing LOD. Various databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Dynamic Plus, ScienceDirect, TRIP database, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to December 2016. Sixty studies were identified, of which seven were deemed eligible for this review. AMH data were extracted from each study and entered into RevMan software to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) between pre- and post-operative values. Pooled analysis of all studies (n=442) revealed a statistically significant decline in serum AMH concentration after LOD (WMD -2.13ng/ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -1.30). Subgroup analysis based on duration of follow-up, AMH kit, laterality of surgery and amount of energy applied during LOD consistently showed a statistically significant fall in serum AMH concentration. In conclusion, although LOD seems to markedly reduce circulating AMH, it remains uncertain whether this reflects a real damage to ovarian reserve or normalisation of the high preoperative serum AMH levels. Further long-term studies on ovarian reserve after LOD are required to address this uncertainty.
Quality assurance and its impact on ovarian visualization rates in the multicenter United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).Turner, G (2016-02)OBJECTIVE: To describe the quality assurance (QA) processes and their impact on visualization of postmenopausal ovaries in the ultrasound arm of a multicentre screening trial for ovarian cancer. METHODS: In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, 50 639 women aged 50-74 years were randomized to the ultrasound arm and underwent annual transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) examinations. QA processes were developed during the course of the trial and included regular monitoring of the visualization rate (VR) of the right ovary. Non-subjective factors identified previously as impacting on VR of the right ovary were included in a generalized estimating equation model for binary outcomes to enable comparison of observed vs adjusted VR between individual sonographers who had undertaken > 1000 scans during the trial and comparison between centers. Observed and adjusted VRs of sonographers and centers were ranked according to the highest VR. Analysis of annual VRs of sonographers and those of the included centers was undertaken. RESULTS: Between June 2001 and December 2010, 48 230 of 50 639 women attended one of 13 centers for a total of 270 035 annual TVS scans. One or both ovaries were seen in 228 145 (84.5%) TVS scans. The right ovary was seen on 196 426 (72.7%) of the scans. For the 78 sonographers included in the model, the median difference between observed and adjusted VR was -0.7% (range, -7.9 to 5.9%) and the median change in VR rank after adjustment was 3 (range, 0-18). For the 13 centers, the median difference between observed and adjusted VR was -0.5% (range, -2.2 to 1%), with no change in ranking after adjustment. The median adjusted VR was 73% (interquartile range (IQR), 65-82%) for sonographers and 74.7% (IQR, 67.1-79.0%) for centers. Despite the increasing age of the women being scanned, there was a steady decrease in the number of sonographers with VR < 60% (21.4% in 2002 vs 2.0% in 2010) and an increase in sonographers with VR > 80% (14.3% in 2002 vs 40.8% in 2010). The median VR of the centers increased from 65.5% (range, 55.7-81.0%) in 2001 to 80.3% (range, 74.5-90.9%) in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: A robust QA program can improve visualization of postmenopausal ovaries and is an essential component of ultrasound-based ovarian cancer screening trials. While VR should be adjusted for non-subjective factors that impact on ovarian visualization, subjective factors are likely to be the largest contributors to differences in VR.
Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial.Jenkins, Howard (2016-03)BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the effect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer-generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202,638 women: 50,640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50,639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101,359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202,546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50,624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50,623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101,299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345,570 MMS and 327,775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0-12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0-14 of 15% (95% CI -3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (-7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar flexible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality effect was made up of 8% (-20 to 31) in years 0-7 and 23% (1-46) in years 7-14, and in the USS group, of 2% (-27 to 26) in years 0-7 and 21% (-2 to 42) in years 7-14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly different death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (-2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (-27 to 43) in years 0-7 and 28% (-3 to 49) in years 7-14 in favour of MMS.INTERPRETATION: Although the mortality reduction was not significant in the primary analysis, we noted a significant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7-14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, The Eve Appeal.