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
. 2023 Jan;130(2):163-175.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17342.

Variation in outcome reporting in studies of fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: A systematic review

Nathanael Yong  1 , Natalie Cooper  2 , Sarah Yorke  3 , Chawan Baran  4 , Khalid Khan  5 , Alex Tan  6   7 , Michail Sideris  7   8 , Stamatina Iliodromiti  2 , Ranjit Manchanda  7   8   9
Affiliations

Variation in outcome reporting in studies of fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: A systematic review

Nathanael Yong et al. BJOG. 2023 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer affects 3197 women in the UK, and 604 000 women worldwide annually, with peak incidence seen in women between 30 and 34 years of 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.

Objectives: 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.

Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to February 2019.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials, cohort and observational studies, and case studies of more than ten participants from January 1990 to date.

Data collection and analysis: Study characteristics and all reported treatment outcomes.

Main results: A total of 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), postoperative complications (74/104), intra-operative complications (72/104) and quality of life (5/104). There was huge variation and heterogeneity in reported outcomes, with only 12% being good quality and 87% being of poor quality.

Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. An agreed Core Outcome Set 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 Core Outcome Set for fertility-sparing surgery in cervical cancer.

Keywords: cervical cancer; core outcomes; fertility-sparing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

NC, KK, and RM have received grant funding from Cancer Research UK (CRUK) to develop core outcome sets for endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia. NC has received a starter grant from the Academy of Medical Sciences to develop a core outcome set for heavy menstrual bleeding. The remaining authors have no competing interest to disclose. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as supporting information.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flowchart
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(2):e191–203. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dappa E, Elger T, Hasenburg A, Düber C, Battista MJ, Hötker AM. The value of advanced MRI techniques in the assessment of cervical cancer: a review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(5):471–81. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics. 2001;21(5):1155–68. - PubMed
    1. Salib MY, Russell JHB, Stewart VR, Sudderuddin SA, Barwick TD, Rockall AG, et al. 2018 FIGO staging classification for cervical cancer: added benefits of imaging. Radiographics. 2020;40(6):1807–22. - PubMed
    1. The British Association of Gynaecological Pathologists . 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer: summary and comparison with 2009 FIGO staging system. 2021. [cited 2 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.thebagp.org/wp‐content/uploads/download‐manager‐files/164260...

Publication types