Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 8:12:866443.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.866443. eCollection 2022.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Oophorectomy in Women With Ovarian Cancer: A Population-Based Study

Jiaqiang Xiong  1 , Zhuoqun Zhang  2 , Yanyan Liu  1 , Guanlan Fan  1 , Kejia Wu  1 , Wei Zhang  1
Affiliations

Prevalence and Outcomes of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Oophorectomy in Women With Ovarian Cancer: A Population-Based Study

Jiaqiang Xiong et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Unilateral oophorectomy has the benefits of preserving the ovarian function of fertility and hormone secretion, but the precise inclusion criteria for candidates for this procedure remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the prevalence and therapeutic efficiency of unilateral oophorectomy in women with ovarian cancer who underwent bilateral oophorectomy; moreover, it aimed to identify the appropriate candidates for unilateral oophorectomy.

Methods: Female patients diagnosed with stage I-III ovarian cancer between 2000 and 2017 were retrospectively identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. Overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) after unilateral or bilateral (salpingo-) oophorectomy were estimated. Cumulative mortality rates (CMRs) for non-cancer comorbidities were also estimated.

Results: A total of 28,480 women with ovarian cancer were included in this study, of whom 11,517 died during the study period. Of the patients, 7.5% and 48.0% underwent unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy, respectively. Overall, for stage-Ia tumors, unilateral oophorectomy was associated with remarkably better OS and DSS than bilateral oophorectomy (OS: p < 0.001; DSS: p = 0.01). For stage-Ib and stage-Ic ovarian tumor, there was no significant difference between the OS and DSS of patients treated by unilateral oophorectomy and those treated by bilateral oophorectomy. For stage-II and stage-III ovarian cancer, unilateral oophorectomy was associated with remarkably worse OS and DSS than bilateral oophorectomy. Among the reproductive-age women younger than 50 years, the OS and DSS of patients with stage-I tumors receiving unilateral oophorectomy were comparable to those receiving bilateral oophorectomy, even for high-grade stage-Ic tumors (all p > 0.05). For those aged 50 years and older, OS and DSS of patients with stage-I tumor receiving unilateral oophorectomy were significantly worse than those receiving bilateral oophorectomy, even for low-grade stage-Ia ovarian tumor (OS: p < 0.001; DSS: p = 0.02).

Conclusion: Unilateral oophorectomy exhibited excellent oncological superiority and was equivalent to bilateral oophorectomy for stage-I ovarian tumors among women of reproductive age. For women of reproductive age, the criteria of unilateral oophorectomy can be appropriately broadened to high-grade stage-Ic diseases because of the better performance of unilateral oophorectomy in this population.

Keywords: SEER; bilateral oophorectomy; outcomes; ovarian cancer; population-based study; prevalence; unilateral oophorectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Changes in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy rate of patients with ovarian cancer by FIGO stage and age at cancer diagnosis. (A) Changes in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy rate of patients with ovarian cancer of all stage by age at cancer diagnosis. (B) Changes in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy rate of patients with ovarian cancer by FIGO stage. (C) Changes in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy rate of patients aged 15-49 years with ovarian cancer by FIGO stage. (D) Changes in unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy rate of patients aged 50+ years with ovarian cancer by FIGO stage.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall survival (OS) of patients with ovarian cancer by surgery. (A) OS of patients with stage-Ia ovarian cancer by surgery. (B) OS of patients with stage-Ib ovarian cancer by surgery. (C) OS of patients with stage-Ic ovarian cancer by surgery. (D) OS of patients with stage-IIa ovarian cancer by surgery. (E) OS of patients with stage-IIb/IIc ovarian cancer by surgery. (F) OS of patients with stage-III ovarian cancer by surgery.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overall survival (OS) of patients with ovarian cancer by cancer stage and different types of surgical operation. (A) OS of patients with stage-Ia ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (B) OS of patients with stage-Ib ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (C) OS of patients with stage-Ic ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (D) OS of patients with stage-IIa ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (E) OS of patients with stage-IIb/IIc ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (F) OS of patients with stage-III ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overall survival (OS) of patients with ovarian cancer by cancer stage, cancer grade and different types of surgical operation. (A) OS of patients with low-grade stage-Ia ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (B) OS of patients with high-grade stage-Ia ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (C) OS of patients with low-grade stage-Ic ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (D) OS of patients with high-grade stage-Ic ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (E) OS of patients with low-grade stage-IIa ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (F) OS of patients with high-grade stage-IIa ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Overall survival (OS) of patients of productive age (15-50 years) with ovarian cancer by cancer stage, cancer grade and different types of surgical operation. (A) OS of patients of productive age with low-grade stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (B) OS of patients of productive age with high-grade stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (C) OS of patients of productive age with low-grade stage-Ia ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (D) OS of patients of productive age with high-grade stage-Ia ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (E) OS of patients of productive age with low-grade stage-Ic ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (F) OS of patients of productive age with high-grade stage-Ic ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Overall survival (OS) of patients aged 50+ years with ovarian cancer by cancer stage, cancer grade and different types of surgical operation. (A) OS of patients aged 50+ years with low-grade stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (B) OS of patients aged 50+ years with high-grade stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (C) OS of patients aged 50+ years with low-grade stage-Ia ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (D) OS of patients aged 50+ years with high-grade stage-Ia ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (E) OS of patients aged 50+ years with low-grade stage-Ic ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (F) OS of patients aged 50+ years with high-grade stage-Ic ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Cumulative mortality rate (CMR) among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (A) CMR from cancer-related deaths among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (B) CMR from infectious diseases among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (C) CMR from cardiovascular diseases among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (D) CMR from respiratory diseases among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (E) CMR from gastrointestinal diseases among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (F) CMR from renal diseases among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (G) CMR from external injuries among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation. (H) CMR from other non-cancer causes among women of productive age with stage-I ovarian cancer by different types of surgical operation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cancer Collaboration. Kocarnik JM, Compton K, Dean FE, Weijia F, Brian LG, et al. . Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. JAMA Oncol (2021) 8:420–44. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Cancer Society . Key Statistics for Ovarian Cancer . Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/key-statistics.html (Accessed January 1, 2022).
    1. The SEER program . Cancer Stat Facts: Ovarian Cancer . Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html (Accessed January 1, 2022).
    1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA. eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2018. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; (2021). Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2018/.
    1. Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H, Harewood R, Spika D, Wang XS, et al. . Global Surveillance of Cancer Survival 1995-2009: Analysis of Individual Data for 25,676,887 Patients From 279 Population-Based Registries in 67 Countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet (2015) 385(9972):977–1010. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62038-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources