Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869476›Full record

SynthesisBMC women's health2022

Outcomes of ovarian transposition in cervical cancer; an updated meta-analysis.

Alexandros Laios, Mohamed Otify, Argyro Papadopoulou, Ioannis D Gallos, Thomas Ind

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Fertility-sparing options for cancer patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandros LaiosDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Harehills, Leeds, LS97TF, UK. a.laios@nhs.net.
Mohamed OtifyDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Argyro PapadopoulouTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham Women's Foundation NHS Trust, Heritage Building, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
Ioannis D GallosTommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham Women's Foundation NHS Trust, Heritage Building, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
Thomas IndDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Fulham Road, London, SW36JJ, UK.
Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the most common indication for ovarian transposition in reproductive-age women. Ovarian transposition should be performed in premenopausal women undergoing pelvic irradiation to preserve ovarian function, and prevent early menopause. As women become more knowledgeable about their fertility options, it is still unclear who will benefit from the intervention. We updated our previous meta-analysis of ovarian function preservation, symptomatic ovarian cysts, and metastases to the transposed ovaries following ovarian transposition in cervical cancer patients to further guide current clinical practice.

methodsA systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases, dating from January 1980 to July 2021, was conducted. We computed the summary proportions of women who had ovarian function preservation, non-ovarian cyst formation and metastases to the transposed ovaries following ovarian transposition by random-effects meta-analysis and we explored study heterogeneity by type of radiotherapy.

resultsThere were 29 publications reporting on 1160 women with cervical cancer who underwent ovarian transposition. In the group that underwent surgery alone, 91% of the women had preserved ovarian function (95% CI 83-100), 89% (95% CI 80-99) of women who did not develop ovarian cysts, and 99% (95% CI 1-5) of women who did not suffer metastases to the transposed ovaries. In the surgery ± brachytherapy (BR) group, the proportion of women with the preserved ovarian function was 93% (95% CI 76-113), 84% (95% CI 69-103) of women who did not develop ovarian cysts, and 99% (95% CI 82-120) of women who did not suffer metastases to the transposed ovaries. In the external beam pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT) ± BR ± surgery group, the proportion of women with the preserved ovarian function was 61% (95% CI 55-69), and 95% (95% CI 85-107) of women who developed ovarian cysts. There were no metastases to the transposed ovaries in that group.

conclusionsIn women with cervical cancer, ovarian transposition offers a significant preservation of the ovarian function. Despite an expected incidence of ovarian cyst formation, it carries almost no risk for metastases to the transposed ovaries.

Indexed as

BrachytherapyOvarian CystsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansPelvisCervical cancerOvarian cystsOvarian metastasesOvarian preservationOvarian transposition

Identifiers

PMID35869476
PMCPMC9308360
OpenAlexW4286560284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.