Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age: a retrospective cohort study

Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age: a retrospective cohort study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age: a retrospective cohort study Rui Sun, Chengyan Luo, Yi Jiang, Shulin Zhou, Yicong Wan, Wenjun Cheng This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-38990/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objective To retrospectively evaluate the oncologic and obstetric outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) for borderline ovarian tumors(BOT). Methods 132 patients with borderline ovarian tumors were divided into the incompletely staging surgery (ISS) group and the completely staging surgery (CSS) group. The overall survival and disease-free survival curves were determined using the Kaplan–Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards method was used to assess the association between the variables and live birth and multivariate analysis to identify the independent associations. Results Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier analyses showed no significant differences in overall survival between the two groups ( p = 1.000 and p = 0.716, respectively). The CSS group had fewer relapses and longer disease-free survival than ISS ( p = 0.003). There was no statistical difference in live birth rate between two groups (crude odds ratio = 0.885, 95%CI 0.411–1.903, p = 0.755; adjusted odds ratio = 0.848, 95%CI 0.366–1.963, p = 0.700). Age was the only independent risk factor for live birth (adjusted odds ratio = 0.902, 95%CI 0.823–0.988, p = 0.027). Mean live birth intervals after FSS was 31.86 ± 19.325 months. Conclusions CSS significantly increased the disease-free survival time of BOT and reduced the relapse risk. However, CSS had a slightly negative and statistically insignificant association with live birth. Sexual & Reproductive Medicine Cancer Biology Borderline ovarian tumor Fertility-sparing surgery Staging surgery Survival state Live birth Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs) are characterised by complex papillary architecture, multilayered epithelium with tufting, mild nuclear atypia, and modestly increased mitotic activity. They do not exert destructive stromal invasion [ 1 ] and account for approximately 10–15% of all ovarian epithelial tumors [ 2 , 3 ] . The incidence of BOTs has been rising over the past decades [ 4 ] . Epidemiologic data indicate that one-third of BOT patients are younger than 40 years [ 5 , 6 ] . Nearly 70% of the cases are generally diagnosed as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IFGO) stage I with a 5-year survival rate of 95–97% [ 7 ] .Given the young age and the good prognosis of BOTs, fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) is normally performed under fully informed consent for young women who desire fertility [ 8 ] to preserve the uterus and at least one ovary with or without staging surgery. However, it remains unclear that the increased risk exposes patients with FSS, especially those who undergo ISS, to a potential effect on survival state and live birth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncologic and obstetric outcomes in women of reproductive age who were treated for BOTs with staging fertility-sparing surgery and to assess the role of staging surgery in fertility-sparing surgery. Material And Methods The medical records of all consecutive patients treated with FSS for BOTs from January 2000 to August 2017 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were retrospectively reviewed. Excluded were patients suffering from a primary malignant tumor in another part of the body or of other malignant ovarian cell types, older than 40 years or lost to follow-up within one month after the initial surgery. FSS preserved the uterus and minimally one ovary, with or without staging surgery. For ovary preservation, the patient underwent one of the following surgical procedures: unilateral adnexectomy (UA), unilateral cystectomy (UC), unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy (UA + CC), and bilateral cystectomy (BC). The procedure of CSS included careful inspection of the peritoneal surfaces, peritoneal washing, random or oriented multiple biopsies and infracolic omentectomy. Systematic appendectomy was also a criterion for complete staging of mucinous BOT. The pathology images were reviewed by two independent pathologists. Staging of the disease was retrospectively performed according to IFGO staging system for ovarian carcinoma (2014). The stage of ISS was evaluated based on the patients’ operative records and the available pathologic findings, with the unevaluated areas negative for metastatic lesions. Early disease was defined as IFGO stages IA–IB, and advanced disease as IFGO stages IC and above. The decision of adjuvant chemotherapy was made based on the ovarian cyst rupture, positive pelvic washing data, lymph node metastasis status, invasive implants, and the extent of disease. The time of overall survival was calculated from the date of the initial operation to the last follow-up or until death. The time of disease-free survival was calculated from the date of the initial operation to the date of recurrence. After the initial treatment, patients were followed up once a month for the first six months, every three months for the next six months, every six months for the next two to five years, and every year thereafter. Recurrence was defined by clinical and/or imaging evidence and confirmed pathologically. Telephone interviews were also conducted to assess obstetric outcomes such as pregnancy attempts, delivery, and the use of assisted reproductive technology. Statistical analysis The clinical features of the two groups, including age at diagnosis, histological type, micro interstitial infiltrates, IFGO stage, infertility, postoperative chemotherapy, surgery procedure, were compared and analyzed. Categorical variables were expressed as number (%) and tested by Chi-square test or Fisher exact test. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and tested by T-test, or Whitney U test (for variables with an abnormal distribution). The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) curves were determined using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the Log-rank test. The associations of the variables with live birth and intervals after the initial surgery were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards method; multivariate analysis was used to identify independent associations. A p -value of ≤ 0.05 in a two-sided test was statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS statistics 17. Results 1. Patient characteristics During the study period, 147 women with BOTs who received primary fertility-sparing surgical treatment were documented (Fig. 1 ). Excluded were the women whose surgery details were missing and those who were lost to follow-up within one month after the initial surgery. Finally, 132 women were included in the study (Table 1 ). Of the 132 patients, 54 undergone CSS and 78 undergone ISS. There were no significant differences in terms of age, histological type, peritoneal implantation, IFGO stage and postoperative chemotherapy between the two groups. There were significant differences in surgery procedure ( p < 0.001). Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients CSS(n = 54) ISS(n = 78) p value Age (mean ± SD) 27.00 ± 5.987 27.95 ± 5.422 0.345 Histological type (%) 0.254 serous 30(55.6%) 51(65.4%) mucinous 24(44.4%) 27(34.6%) Peritoneal implantation (%) 0.635 yes 10(18.5%) 12(15.4%) no 44(81.5%) 66(84.6%) FIGO stage (%) 0.098 IA + IB 36(66.7%) 62(79.5%) ≥IC 18(33.3%) 16(20.5%) Infertility (%) 0.635 yes 8(14.8%) 14(17.9%) no 46(85.2%) 64(82.1%) Postoperative chemotherapy (%) 0.458 yes 11(20.4%) 12(15.4%) no 43(79.6%) 66(84.6%) Surgery procedure (%) < 0.001 UA 41(75.9%) 32(41.0%) UC 3(5.6%) 31(39.7%) UA + CC 10(18.5%) 7(9.0%) BC 0(0.0%) 8(10.3%) Survival state 1.000 dead 1(1.9%) 1(1.3%) alive 53(98.1%) 77(98.7%) OS(months) 65.049 ± 26.077 75.856 ± 43.269 0.076 Recurrence < 0.001 yes 7(13.0%) 40(51.3%) no 47(87.0%) 38(48.7%) DFS(months) 61.113 ± 26.023 49.431 ± 36.261 0.033 CSS: completely staging surgery ISS: incompletely staging surgery SD: standard deviation FIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics UA: unilateral adnexectomy UC: unilateral cystectomy UA + UC: unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy BC: bilateral cystectomy OS: overall survival DFS: disease-free survival 2. Oncologic outcomes The median follow-up was 67.233 (range: 8.60–223.40) months. For the entire series, 47 patients (47/132 35.6%) had recurrence at 3.77 to 145.60 months after the initial surgery. The median interval of disease-free survival was 50.583 months. There were two disease-related deaths, and other patients were alive until the end of the follow-up. The total 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 69.6% and 99.2%, respectively. Chi-square analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences in overall survival between the CSS and ISS groups ( p = 1.000 and 0.716, respectively) (Table 1 and Fig. 2 a). The recurrence rate was significantly higher in the ISS group than the CSS group (51.3%% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the CSS group suffered fewer relapses and longer disease-free survival time than the ISS group ( p = 0.003) (Fig. 2 b). 3. Obstetric outcomes Telephone interviews were conducted with all 132 patients (including the family members of the two dead patients) after FSS. Among them, 70 attempted to conceive were included in this part of the study (Table 2 ) and 62 women who did not try to conceive were removed. There were no significant differences in terms of staging surgery, IFGO stage, histological type, peritoneal implantation, postoperative menstruation, chemotherapy and infertility between the live birth group and the non-live-birth group. The two groups had significant differences in age and surgery procedure ( p = 0.047 and 0.032, respectively). Table 2 Characteristics of patients who attempted to conceive after the FSS Women with live births (n = 34) Women without live births (n = 36) p value Age (mean ± SD) 26.62 ± 3.908 28.64 ± 4.402 0.047 Staging surgery 0.385 CSS 9(26.5%) 13(36.1%) ISS 25(73.5%) 23(63.9%) Surgery procedure (%) 0.032 UA 19(55.9%) 14(38.9%) UC 13(38.2%) 10(27.8%) UA + CC 2(5.9%) 8(22.2%) BC 0(0.0%) 4(11.1%) IFGO stage (%) 0.705 IA + IB 25(73.5%) 25(69.4%) ≥IC 9(26.5%) 11(30.6%) Histological type (%) 0.246 serous 25(73.5%) 28(77.8%) mucinous 9(26.5%) 8(22.2%) Peritoneal implantation 0.231 yes 7(20.6%) 12(33.3%) no 27(79.4%) 24(66.7%) Postoperative menstruation 0.845 regular 20(58.8%) 22(61.1%) irregular 14(41.2%) 14(38.9%) Chemotherapy 0.208 yes 6(17.6%) 11(30.6%) no 28(82.4%) 25(69.4%) Infertility (%) 0.231 no 27(79.4%) 24(66.7%) yes 7(20.6%) 12(33.3%) FSS: fertility-sparing surgery CSS: completely staging surgery ISS: incompletely staging surgery SD: standard deviation FIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics UA: unilateral adnexectomy UC: unilateral cystectomy UA + UC: unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy BC: bilateral cystectomy To find out the factors affecting the live birth intervals after FSS, all the listed covariates in Table 3 were entered into the initial Cox proportional hazard model with backward logistic stepwise regression method. The final hazard regression model (Table 3 ) showed that age, surgery procedure and chemotherapy was statistically related to live birth intervals after FSS. Yet only age was identified as the independent risk factor for patients’ live births in the multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio = 0.902, 95%CI 0.823–0.988, p = 0.027). Adjusted analysis was not possible for BC because no cases were observed in the BC group. Table 3 Cox proportional hazard regression models for live birth intervals. p value 95% CI Age 0.027 0.823–0.988 Surgery procedure 0.479 UC 0.626 0.408–1.715 UA + CC 0.117 0.070–1.345 BC 0.979 Chemotherapy 0.111 0.191–1.185 UC: unilateral cystectomy UA + UC: unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy BC: bilateral cystectomy Univariate and multivariate analysis showed no statistical differences in live births between CSS and ISS. The live birth rate was 40.9% (9/22) in CSS, compared with 52.1% (25/48) in ISS group, indicating no statistical significance ( p = 0.385) between the two groups. The crude odds ratio for CSS was 0.885 ( p = 0.755, 95% CI: 0.411–1.903); the adjusted odds ratio decreased to 0.848 ( p = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.366–1.963) after the adjustment for age, chemotherapy and surgery procedure. Of the 70 patients who attempted to conceive after FSS, 34 patients (48.5%) gave birth successfully. Live birth intervals after FSS was 31.86 ± 19.325 (range: 4.93–82.17) months. Two patients had UA during pregnancy and gave birth successfully. Among the 34 patients who gave birth, 27 (27/34, 79.4%) were conceived naturally, while seven (7/34, 20.6%) underwent ovulation induction and in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. These pregnancies resulted in 31 full-term deliveries and three premature deliveries. Nineteen patients had cesarean section and 15 had spontaneous delivery. The hydatid mole was seen in one case, and ongoing pregnancy in one at the time of analysis. Discussion Surgical staging of BOTs is controversial. Some people suggest that re-staging surgery and full staging surgery is not necessary for all BOTs. Kimio [ 9 ] believed that there was no significant difference in patients’ survival between those who underwent re-staging surgery and those who did not. A French multi-centered study [ 10 ] found no difference in recurrence rates between patients who received restaging operations and those who did not. For patients who underwent restaging, the mean recurrence time was 40 ± 19.9 months after surgery, compared with 30.9 ± 36.3 months for those who did not undergo restaging (no significant difference). Similarly, in a series of 233 BOT patients without re-staging procedures, the patients who had undergone complete staging suffered fewer relapses than those with incomplete staging (5.1% vs 12.3%), but this difference was not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis [ 11 ] . Margarita suggested that the benefits of complete staging in BOT patients could be limited because: a) it might not affect the decision of adjuvant treatment as this was not a standard care; and b) most recurrences could be salvaged [ 12 , 13 ] . However, other people hold a different point of view. A meta-analysis of 2770 BOT cases from 18 observational studies showed that CSS significantly reduced recurrence (the pooled odds ratio for CSS and recurrence: 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.47–0.87, p < 0.05) [ 14 ] . A large cohort study on BOT of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO ROBOT study) confirmed ISS as an independent negative prognostic factor for disease recurrence, apart from other factors such as higher IFGO stage, residual tumour, and fertility preservation [ 15 ] . Generally, fertility preservation for BOT patients carries a good prognosis [ 16 – 19 ] . But few studies have discussed the safety and necessity of CSS for BOTs in FSS. As for ISS, we found that despite the high recurrence rate, the overall survival and prognosis were not affected. Chi-square analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences in survival between CSS and ISS ( p = 1.000 and 0.716, respectively), and CSS significantly increased the disease-free survival time of BOT ( p = 0.000) and reduced the risk of relapse (51.3% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.000). Many studies were conducted regarding the pregnancy rates of BOT patients after FSS, but few addressed live birth rates. Zhao [ 20 ] reported a total pregnant rate of 33.8%. Lee also reported that 26 of the 32 patients (81.3%) had successful pregnancies[16]. A systematic review of 230 articles on conservative management of BOTs reported the pregnancy rates ranged from 32–88%, and the pooled estimate for spontaneous pregnancies was 54% (95% CI: 38–70%, I 2 = 91%) [ 21 ] . Higher pregnancy rates were reported in Asian series where the proportion of conservatively treated mucinous tumor was higher: pregnancy rates were 88% according to Song et al [ 22 ] , and 73% according to Park et al [ 23 ] . In our series, 48.5% (34/70) of the cases had live births after FSS. The birth intervals after FSS was 31.86 ± 19.325 (range: 4.93–82.17) months. Fauvet [ 24 ] reported that the median interval from surgery to pregnancy was 28.6 ± 24.6 (range: 4–89) months. The results in our study corresponded with the literatures. In general, positive reproductive treatment is needed for fertility-sparing patients of older age to help them conceive as early as possible. For those who want to conceive naturally, fertility guidelines can be introduced at 31.86 ± 19.325 months after surgery. A nomogram developed to predict live birth for BOT women after FSS found factors such as FIGO stage, age at diagnosis, histological subtype and surgery type could impact live birth and fertility [ 25 ] . The influence of age on live birth cannot be ignored. Fauvet [ 26 ] reported that on average, the women who conceived were younger than those who did not conceive (26.7 ± 5.6 years vs. 32.3 ± 6.5 years; p = 0.001), yet the two subgroups did not differ significantly in terms of nulliparity proportion, the history of infertility or ovarian surgery, preoperative tumor marker levels, tumor size, or the type of conservative treatment. Previous studies [ 26 ] showed that age at initial treatment was the only determinant of fertility. In patients aged 35 years, the pregnancy rate was 42%, which was significantly higher (by 20%) than that of patients aged 35 to 40 years. In our study, the final COX model showed that age, surgery procedure and chemotherapy was statistically related to live birth and intervals after FSS during follow-up. But only age was identified as an independent risk factor for live birth, which was similar to previous studies. Furthermore, we find that the live birth rate of women with ISS was higher than that of women with CSS, but the difference was not statistically significant. Strengths And Limitations Our study is limited by the inherent flaws of a retrospective design, as well as a referral bias of patients who received treatment and follow-up at a single tertiary cancer center. Another limitation dictated by the rarity of these tumors is an extended study period, which exposes the study cohort to shifts in classification and management. One should consider these limitations in assessing our findings. Conclusion FSS with CSS or ISS both seemed safe and feasible for young women who desire fertility preservation. CSS could significantly increase the disease-free survival time of BOT and reduce the risk of relapse, while there was no significant difference in overall survival between CSS and ISS. Besides, CSS had slightly negative and statistically insignificant association with live birth. For young patients who required to conceive naturally, assisted reproductive technology could be introduced until 31.86 ± 19.325 months after surgery. However, positive reproductive treatment should be used for fertility-sparing patients of older age to help them conceive as early as possible. Abbreviations incompletely staging surgery (ISS) completely staging surgery (CSS) fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) borderline ovarian tumors (BOT). International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IFGO) standard deviation (SD) overall survival (OS) disease-free survival (DFS) unilateral adnexectomy (UA) unilateral cystectomy (UC) unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy (UA + CC) bilateral cystectomy (BC) Declarations Availability of data and materials The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to further study but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by the ethics committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital. Approval number No. 2018-SRFA-052. All participants provided an informed written consent after explaining the aim of the study, the procedure & the potential hazards. Consent for publication Not applicable Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (8187101839), and the Jiangsu Province Medical Innovation Team (CXTDA2017008). Author contributions Rui Sun: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. Luocheng Yan: project development, data collection, data analysis. Yi Jiang: data collection, manuscript editing. Yicong Wan: manuscript writing. Shulin Zhou: data collection. Wenjun Cheng: project development, manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements None References Bocker W. [WHO classification of breast tumors and tumors of the female genital organs: pathology and genetics][J]. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol. 2002;86:116–9. Harris R, Whittemore AS, Itnyre J. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. III. Epithelial tumors of low malignant potential in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group[J] Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136(10):1204–11. Morice P, Uzan C, Fauvet R, et al. Borderline ovarian tumour: pathological diagnostic dilemma and risk factors for invasive or lethal recurrence[J]. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):e103–15. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70288-1 . Skirnisdottir I, Garmo H, Wilander E, et al. Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960–2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer[J]. Int J Cancer. 2008;123(8):1897–901. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.23724 . Sherman ME, Berman J, Birrer MJ, et al. Current challenges and opportunities for research on borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Hum Pathol. 2004;35(8):961–70. Sherman ME, Mink PJ, Curtis R, et al. Survival among women with borderline ovarian tumors and ovarian carcinoma: a population-based analysis[J]. Cancer. 2004;100(5):1045–52. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20080 . Tinelli R, Tinelli A, Tinelli FG, et al. Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a review[J]. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100(1):185–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.09.021 . du Bois A, Trillsch F, Mahner S, et al. Management of borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(Suppl 1):i20–2. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw090 . Ushijima K, Kawano K, Tsuda N, et al. Epithelial borderline ovarian tumor: Diagnosis and treatment strategy[J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015;58(3):183–7. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2015.58.3.183 . Fauvet R, Boccara J, Dufournet C, et al. Restaging surgery for women with borderline ovarian tumors: results of a French multicenter study[J]. Cancer. 2004;100(6):1145–51. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20098 . Wu TI, Lee CL, Wu MY, et al. Prognostic factors predicting recurrence in borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(2):237–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.018 . Romeo M, Pons F, Barretina P, et al. Erratum to: Incomplete staging surgery as a major predictor of relapse of borderline ovarian tumor[J]. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):226. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-0976-4 . Romeo M, Pons F, Barretina P, et al. Incomplete staging surgery as a major predictor of relapse of borderline ovarian tumor[J]. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:13. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-13 . Shim SH, Kim SN, Jung PS, et al. Impact of surgical staging on prognosis in patients with borderline ovarian tumours: A meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Cancer. 2016;54:84–95.DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.11.005. du Bois A, Ewald-Riegler N, de Gregorio N, et al. Borderline tumours of the ovary: A cohort study of the Arbeitsgmeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group[J]. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(8):1905–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.01.035 . Lee SY, Choi MC, Kwon BR, et al. Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age[J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60(3):289–95. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2017.60.3.289 . Lou T, Yuan F, Feng Y, et al. The safety of fertility and ipsilateral ovary procedures for borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Oncotarget. 2017;8(70):115718–29. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23021 . Helpman L, Yaniv A, Beiner ME, et al. Fertility preservation in women with borderline ovarian tumors - how does it impact disease outcome? A cohort study[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(11):1300–6. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13203 . Lee SY, Choi MC, Kwon BR, et al. Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age[J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60(3):289–95. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2017.60.3.289 . Zhao J, Liu C, Liu J, et al. Short-term Outcomes and Pregnancy Rate After Laparoscopic Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Borderline Ovarian Tumors: A Single-Institute Experience[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(2):274–8. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001170 . Darai E, Fauvet R, Uzan C, et al. Fertility and borderline ovarian tumor: a systematic review of conservative management, risk of recurrence and alternative options[J]. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(2):151–66. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dms047 . Song T, Hun CC, Lee YY, et al. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes of cystectomy compared with oophorectomy as a treatment for borderline ovarian tumours[J]. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(8):2008–14. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der119 . Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, et al. Surgical management of borderline ovarian tumors: The role of fertility-sparing surgery[J]. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(1):75–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.034 . Fauvet R, Poncelet C, Boccara J, et al. Fertility after conservative treatment for borderline ovarian tumors: a French multicenter study[J]. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(2):284–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.009 . 525–526. Ouldamer L, Bendifallah S, Naoura I, et al. Nomogram to predict live birth rate after fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumours[J]. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(8):1732–7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew137 . Fauvet R, Poncelet C, Boccara J, et al. Fertility after conservative treatment for borderline ovarian tumors: a French multicenter study[J]. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(2):284–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.009 . 525–526. Supplementary Files coverletter.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-38990","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":748721,"identity":"6bb6b49f-8a10-45ad-8d33-7cd66feaa7e9","order_by":0,"name":"Rui Sun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rui","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""},{"id":748722,"identity":"8498ab67-a78e-4067-bbdc-462beb1e9afd","order_by":1,"name":"Chengyan Luo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chengyan","middleName":"","lastName":"Luo","suffix":""},{"id":748723,"identity":"ec38576e-e373-4a81-8ef7-b28c6dcc95a7","order_by":2,"name":"Yi Jiang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yi","middleName":"","lastName":"Jiang","suffix":""},{"id":748724,"identity":"66a950b4-4424-4a58-a42d-62cb4e40b949","order_by":3,"name":"Shulin Zhou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shulin","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhou","suffix":""},{"id":748725,"identity":"8fd1bc29-e837-4e79-95ec-8d352f697067","order_by":4,"name":"Yicong Wan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yicong","middleName":"","lastName":"Wan","suffix":""},{"id":748726,"identity":"9e61e5f1-d099-40ca-b9bc-12ec92ee22fd","order_by":5,"name":"Wenjun Cheng","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3872-4384","institution":"Jiangsu Province Hospital and Nanjing Medical University First Affiliated Hospital","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenjun","middleName":"","lastName":"Cheng","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2020-06-29 09:44:01","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-38990/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-38990/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":1476828,"identity":"ed5ebc10-1aec-48b0-9a23-f171c0aed8ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-07-02 11:12:16","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":147134,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Study flow diagram of the paper","description":"","filename":"Fig.1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-38990/v1/Fig.1.jpg"},{"id":1476829,"identity":"3cb4c904-0f14-4f26-8c15-d1a9ce01ecb4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-07-02 11:12:16","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":607786,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Survival curves in women with borderline ovarian tumors. (a)Overall survival comparing the incompletely staging surgery (ISS) group and the completely staging surgery (CSS) group. (b)Disease-free survival comparing the incompletely staging surgery (ISS) group and the completely staging surgery (CSS) group.","description":"","filename":"Fig.2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-38990/v1/Fig.2.jpg"},{"id":13548477,"identity":"0b87030c-23ee-4d8a-8595-5154400b49f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-09-17 02:17:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":444818,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-38990/v1/bfe7503a-a0bf-4472-86d7-5cd6670ab9c1.pdf"},{"id":1476831,"identity":"98535e6e-8dbd-40b7-8e24-f136402436bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2020-07-02 11:12:17","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14067,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"coverletter.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-38990/v1/coverletter.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age: a retrospective cohort study","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":" \u003cp\u003eBorderline ovarian tumours (BOTs) are characterised by complex papillary architecture, multilayered epithelium with tufting, mild nuclear atypia, and modestly increased mitotic activity. They do not exert destructive stromal invasion\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e and account for approximately 10\u0026ndash;15% of all ovarian epithelial tumors\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe incidence of BOTs has been rising over the past decades\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Epidemiologic data indicate that one-third of BOT patients are younger than 40 years\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Nearly 70% of the cases are generally diagnosed as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IFGO) stage I with a 5-year survival rate of 95\u0026ndash;97%\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.Given the young age and the good prognosis of BOTs, fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) is normally performed under fully informed consent for young women who desire fertility \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e to preserve the uterus and at least one ovary with or without staging surgery. However, it remains unclear that the increased risk exposes patients with FSS, especially those who undergo ISS, to a potential effect on survival state and live birth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to evaluate the oncologic and obstetric outcomes in women of reproductive age who were treated for BOTs with staging fertility-sparing surgery and to assess the role of staging surgery in fertility-sparing surgery.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Material And Methods","content":" \u003cp\u003eThe medical records of all consecutive patients treated with FSS for BOTs from January 2000 to August 2017\u0026nbsp;at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were retrospectively reviewed. Excluded were patients suffering from a primary malignant tumor in another part of the body or of other malignant ovarian cell types, older than 40\u0026nbsp;years or lost to follow-up within one month after the initial surgery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFSS preserved the uterus and minimally one ovary, with or without staging surgery. For ovary preservation, the patient underwent one of the following surgical procedures: unilateral adnexectomy (UA), unilateral cystectomy (UC), unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy (UA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CC), and bilateral cystectomy (BC). The procedure of CSS included careful inspection of the peritoneal surfaces, peritoneal washing, random or oriented multiple biopsies and infracolic omentectomy. Systematic appendectomy was also a criterion for complete staging of mucinous BOT.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pathology images were reviewed by two independent pathologists. Staging of the disease was retrospectively performed according to IFGO staging system for ovarian carcinoma (2014). The stage of ISS was evaluated based on the patients\u0026rsquo; operative records and the available pathologic findings, with the unevaluated areas negative for metastatic lesions. Early disease was defined as IFGO stages IA\u0026ndash;IB, and advanced disease as IFGO stages IC and above.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe decision of adjuvant chemotherapy was made based on the ovarian cyst rupture, positive pelvic washing data, lymph node metastasis status, invasive implants, and the extent of disease.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe time of overall survival was calculated from the date of the initial operation to the last follow-up or until death. The time of disease-free survival was calculated from the date of the initial operation to the date of recurrence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the initial treatment, patients were followed up once a month for the first six months, every three months for the next six months, every six months for the next two to five years, and every year thereafter. Recurrence was defined by clinical and/or imaging evidence and confirmed pathologically. Telephone interviews were also conducted to assess obstetric outcomes such as pregnancy attempts, delivery, and the use of assisted reproductive technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe clinical features of the two groups, including age at diagnosis, histological type, micro interstitial infiltrates, IFGO stage, infertility, postoperative chemotherapy, surgery procedure, were compared and analyzed. Categorical variables were expressed as number (%) and tested by Chi-square test or Fisher exact test. Continuous variables were presented as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation (SD) and tested by T-test, or Whitney U test (for variables with an abnormal distribution). The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) curves were determined using the Kaplan\u0026ndash;Meier method and compared using the Log-rank test. The associations of the variables with live birth and intervals after the initial surgery were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards method; multivariate analysis was used to identify independent associations. A \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value of \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05 in a two-sided test was statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS statistics 17.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Results","content":" \u003cp\u003e1. Patient characteristics\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the study period, 147 women with BOTs who received primary fertility-sparing surgical treatment were documented (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Excluded were the women whose surgery details were missing and those who were lost to follow-up within one month after the initial surgery. Finally, 132 women were included in the study (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Of the 132 patients, 54 undergone CSS and 78 undergone ISS. There were no significant differences in terms of age, histological type, peritoneal implantation, IFGO stage and postoperative chemotherapy between the two groups. There were significant differences in surgery procedure (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline characteristics of patients\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCSS(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;54)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eISS(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;78)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge (mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.95\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.422\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.345\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistological type (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eserous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30(55.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51(65.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emucinous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24(44.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27(34.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeritoneal implantation (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.635\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10(18.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12(15.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44(81.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66(84.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFIGO stage (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;IB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36(66.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62(79.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;IC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18(33.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16(20.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfertility (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.635\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8(14.8%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(17.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46(85.2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64(82.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostoperative chemotherapy (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.458\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(20.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12(15.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43(79.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66(84.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurgery procedure (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41(75.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32(41.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3(5.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31(39.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10(18.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7(9.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0(0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8(10.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvival state\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edead\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1(1.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1(1.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ealive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53(98.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77(98.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOS(months)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.049\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26.077\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.856\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;43.269\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecurrence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7(13.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40(51.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47(87.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38(48.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDFS(months)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.113\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26.023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.431\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;36.261\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eCSS: completely staging surgery\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eISS: incompletely staging surgery\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eSD: standard deviation\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eFIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eUA: unilateral adnexectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eUC: unilateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eUA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;UC: unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eBC: bilateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eOS: overall survival\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eDFS: disease-free survival\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Oncologic outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe median follow-up was 67.233 (range: 8.60\u0026ndash;223.40) months. For the entire series, 47 patients (47/132 35.6%) had recurrence at 3.77 to 145.60\u0026nbsp;months after the initial surgery. The median interval of disease-free survival was 50.583\u0026nbsp;months. There were two disease-related deaths, and other patients were alive until the end of the follow-up. The total 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 69.6% and 99.2%, respectively. Chi-square analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences in overall survival between the CSS and ISS groups (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000 and 0.716, respectively) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea). The recurrence rate was significantly higher in the ISS group than the CSS group (51.3%% vs. 13.0%, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the CSS group suffered fewer relapses and longer disease-free survival time than the ISS group (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Obstetric outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTelephone interviews were conducted with all 132 patients (including the family members of the two dead patients) after FSS. Among them, 70 attempted to conceive were included in this part of the study (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) and 62 women who did not try to conceive were removed. There were no significant differences in terms of staging surgery, IFGO stage, histological type, peritoneal implantation, postoperative menstruation, chemotherapy and infertility between the live birth group and the non-live-birth group. The two groups had significant differences in age and surgery procedure (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.047 and 0.032, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of patients who attempted to conceive after the FSS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen with live births (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;34)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen without live births (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge (mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.62\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.908\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.64\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.402\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStaging surgery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.385\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCSS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9(26.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13(36.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eISS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(73.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23(63.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurgery procedure (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19(55.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(38.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13(38.2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10(27.8%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2(5.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8(22.2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0(0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4(11.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIFGO stage (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.705\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;IB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(73.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(69.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;IC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9(26.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(30.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistological type (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.246\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eserous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(73.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28(77.8%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emucinous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9(26.5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8(22.2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeritoneal implantation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.231\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7(20.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12(33.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27(79.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24(66.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostoperative menstruation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.845\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eregular\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20(58.8%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22(61.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eirregular\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(41.2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(38.9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChemotherapy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.208\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6(17.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(30.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28(82.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(69.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfertility (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.231\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eno\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27(79.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24(66.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7(20.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12(33.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eFSS: fertility-sparing surgery\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eCSS: completely staging surgery\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eISS: incompletely staging surgery\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eSD: standard deviation\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eFIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eUA: unilateral adnexectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eUC: unilateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eUA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;UC: unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eBC: bilateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo find out the factors affecting the live birth intervals after FSS, all the listed covariates in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e were entered into the initial Cox proportional hazard model with backward logistic stepwise regression method. The final hazard regression model (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) showed that age, surgery procedure and chemotherapy was statistically related to live birth intervals after FSS. Yet only age was identified as the independent risk factor for patients\u0026rsquo; live births in the multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.902, 95%CI 0.823\u0026ndash;0.988, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.027). Adjusted analysis was not possible for BC because no cases were observed in the BC group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCox proportional hazard regression models for live birth intervals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.823\u0026ndash;0.988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurgery procedure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.479\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.626\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.408\u0026ndash;1.715\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.117\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.070\u0026ndash;1.345\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.979\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChemotherapy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.191\u0026ndash;1.185\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eUC: unilateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eUA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;UC: unilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eBC: bilateral cystectomy\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnivariate and multivariate analysis showed no statistical differences in live births between CSS and ISS. The live birth rate was 40.9% (9/22) in CSS, compared with 52.1% (25/48) in ISS group, indicating no statistical significance (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.385) between the two groups. The crude odds ratio for CSS was 0.885 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.755, 95% CI: 0.411\u0026ndash;1.903); the adjusted odds ratio decreased to 0.848 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.700, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.366\u0026ndash;1.963) after the adjustment for age, chemotherapy and surgery procedure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the 70 patients who attempted to conceive after FSS, 34 patients (48.5%) gave birth successfully. Live birth intervals after FSS was 31.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19.325 (range: 4.93\u0026ndash;82.17) months. Two patients had UA during pregnancy and gave birth successfully. Among the 34 patients who gave birth, 27 (27/34, 79.4%) were conceived naturally, while seven (7/34, 20.6%) underwent ovulation induction and in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. These pregnancies resulted in 31 full-term deliveries and three premature deliveries. Nineteen patients had cesarean section and 15 had spontaneous delivery. The hydatid mole was seen in one case, and ongoing pregnancy in one at the time of analysis.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Discussion","content":" \u003cp\u003eSurgical staging of BOTs is controversial. Some people suggest that re-staging surgery and full staging surgery is not necessary for all BOTs. Kimio\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e believed that there was no significant difference in patients\u0026rsquo; survival between those who underwent re-staging surgery and those who did not. A French multi-centered study\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e found no difference in recurrence rates between patients who received restaging operations and those who did not. For patients who underwent restaging, the mean recurrence time was 40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19.9 months after surgery, compared with 30.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;36.3 months for those who did not undergo restaging (no significant difference). Similarly, in a series of 233 BOT patients without re-staging procedures, the patients who had undergone complete staging suffered fewer relapses than those with incomplete staging (5.1% vs 12.3%), but this difference was not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Margarita suggested that the benefits of complete staging in BOT patients could be limited because: a) it might not affect the decision of adjuvant treatment as this was not a standard care; and b) most recurrences could be salvaged\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, other people hold a different point of view. A meta-analysis of 2770 BOT cases from 18 observational studies showed that CSS significantly reduced recurrence (the pooled odds ratio for CSS and recurrence: 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.47\u0026ndash;0.87, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. A large cohort study on BOT of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO ROBOT study) confirmed ISS as an independent negative prognostic factor for disease recurrence, apart from other factors such as higher IFGO stage, residual tumour, and fertility preservation \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Generally, fertility preservation for BOT patients carries a good prognosis \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17 CR18\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. But few studies have discussed the safety and necessity of CSS for BOTs in FSS. As for ISS, we found that despite the high recurrence rate, the overall survival and prognosis were not affected. Chi-square analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences in survival between CSS and ISS (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000 and 0.716, respectively), and CSS significantly increased the disease-free survival time of BOT (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000) and reduced the risk of relapse (51.3% vs. 13.0%, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany studies were conducted regarding the pregnancy rates of BOT patients after FSS, but few addressed live birth rates. Zhao\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e reported a total pregnant rate of 33.8%. Lee also reported that 26 of the 32 patients (81.3%) had successful pregnancies[16]. A systematic review of 230 articles on conservative management of BOTs reported the pregnancy rates ranged from 32\u0026ndash;88%, and the pooled estimate for spontaneous pregnancies was 54% (95% CI: 38\u0026ndash;70%, I\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;91%)\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Higher pregnancy rates were reported in Asian series where the proportion of conservatively treated mucinous tumor was higher: pregnancy rates were 88% according to Song et al\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, and 73% according to Park et al\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. In our series, 48.5% (34/70) of the cases had live births after FSS. The birth intervals after FSS was 31.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19.325 (range: 4.93\u0026ndash;82.17) months. Fauvet\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e reported that the median interval from surgery to pregnancy was 28.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;24.6 (range: 4\u0026ndash;89) months. The results in our study corresponded with the literatures. In general, positive reproductive treatment is needed for fertility-sparing patients of older age to help them conceive as early as possible. For those who want to conceive naturally, fertility guidelines can be introduced at 31.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19.325 months after surgery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA nomogram developed to predict live birth for BOT women after FSS found factors such as FIGO stage, age at diagnosis, histological subtype and surgery type could impact live birth and fertility \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The influence of age on live birth cannot be ignored. Fauvet\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e reported that on average, the women who conceived were younger than those who did not conceive (26.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.6\u0026nbsp;years vs. 32.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.5 years; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001), yet the two subgroups did not differ significantly in terms of nulliparity proportion, the history of infertility or ovarian surgery, preoperative tumor marker levels, tumor size, or the type of conservative treatment. Previous studies\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e showed that age at initial treatment was the only determinant of fertility. In patients aged 35 years, the pregnancy rate was 42%, which was significantly higher (by 20%) than that of patients aged 35 to 40\u0026nbsp;years. In our study, the final COX model showed that age, surgery procedure and chemotherapy was statistically related to live birth and intervals after FSS during follow-up. But only age was identified as an independent risk factor for live birth, which was similar to previous studies. Furthermore, we find that the live birth rate of women with ISS was higher than that of women with CSS, but the difference was not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Strengths And Limitations","content":" \u003cp\u003eOur study is limited by the inherent flaws of a retrospective design, as well as a referral bias of patients who received treatment and follow-up at a single tertiary cancer center. Another limitation dictated by the rarity of these tumors is an extended study period, which exposes the study cohort to shifts in classification and management. One should consider these limitations in assessing our findings.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Conclusion","content":" \u003cp\u003eFSS with CSS or ISS both seemed safe and feasible for young women who desire fertility preservation. CSS could significantly increase the disease-free survival time of BOT and reduce the risk of relapse, while there was no significant difference in overall survival between CSS and ISS. Besides, CSS had slightly negative and statistically insignificant association with live birth. For young patients who required to conceive naturally, assisted reproductive technology could be introduced until 31.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19.325 months after surgery. However, positive reproductive treatment should be used for fertility-sparing patients of older age to help them conceive as early as possible.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eincompletely staging surgery (ISS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ecompletely staging surgery (CSS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efertility-sparing surgery (FSS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eborderline ovarian tumors (BOT).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IFGO)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003estandard deviation (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eoverall survival (OS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edisease-free survival (DFS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eunilateral adnexectomy (UA)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eunilateral cystectomy (UC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eunilateral adnexectomy with contralateral cystectomy (UA\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ebilateral cystectomy (BC)\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to further study but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was approved by the ethics committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital. Approval number No. 2018-SRFA-052. All participants provided an informed written consent after explaining the aim of the study, the procedure \u0026amp; the potential hazards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (8187101839), and the Jiangsu Province Medical Innovation Team (CXTDA2017008).\u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRui Sun: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. Luocheng Yan: project development, data collection, data analysis. Yi Jiang: data collection, manuscript editing. Yicong Wan: manuscript writing. Shulin Zhou: data collection. Wenjun Cheng: project development, manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eBocker W. [WHO classification of breast tumors and tumors of the female genital organs: pathology and genetics][J]. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol. 2002;86:116\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eHarris R, Whittemore AS, Itnyre J. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. III. Epithelial tumors of low malignant potential in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group[J] Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136(10):1204\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eMorice P, Uzan C, Fauvet R, et al. Borderline ovarian tumour: pathological diagnostic dilemma and risk factors for invasive or lethal recurrence[J]. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):e103\u0026ndash;15. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70288-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eSkirnisdottir I, Garmo H, Wilander E, et al. Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960\u0026ndash;2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer[J]. Int J Cancer. 2008;123(8):1897\u0026ndash;901. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/ijc.23724\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eSherman ME, Berman J, Birrer MJ, et al. Current challenges and opportunities for research on borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Hum Pathol. 2004;35(8):961\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eSherman ME, Mink PJ, Curtis R, et al. Survival among women with borderline ovarian tumors and ovarian carcinoma: a population-based analysis[J]. Cancer. 2004;100(5):1045\u0026ndash;52. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/cncr.20080\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eTinelli R, Tinelli A, Tinelli FG, et al. Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a review[J]. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100(1):185\u0026ndash;91. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.09.021\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003edu Bois A, Trillsch F, Mahner S, et al. Management of borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(Suppl 1):i20\u0026ndash;2. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/annonc/mdw090\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eUshijima K, Kawano K, Tsuda N, et al. Epithelial borderline ovarian tumor: Diagnosis and treatment strategy[J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015;58(3):183\u0026ndash;7. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5468/ogs.2015.58.3.183\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eFauvet R, Boccara J, Dufournet C, et al. Restaging surgery for women with borderline ovarian tumors: results of a French multicenter study[J]. Cancer. 2004;100(6):1145\u0026ndash;51. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/cncr.20098\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eWu TI, Lee CL, Wu MY, et al. Prognostic factors predicting recurrence in borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(2):237\u0026ndash;41. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.018\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eRomeo M, Pons F, Barretina P, et al. Erratum to: Incomplete staging surgery as a major predictor of relapse of borderline ovarian tumor[J]. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):226. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12957-016-0976-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eRomeo M, Pons F, Barretina P, et al. Incomplete staging surgery as a major predictor of relapse of borderline ovarian tumor[J]. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:13. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/1477-7819-11-13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eShim SH, Kim SN, Jung PS, et al. Impact of surgical staging on prognosis in patients with borderline ovarian tumours: A meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Cancer. 2016;54:84\u0026ndash;95.DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.11.005.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003edu Bois A, Ewald-Riegler N, de Gregorio N, et al. Borderline tumours of the ovary: A cohort study of the Arbeitsgmeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group[J]. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(8):1905\u0026ndash;14. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ejca.2013.01.035\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eLee SY, Choi MC, Kwon BR, et al. Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age[J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60(3):289\u0026ndash;95. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5468/ogs.2017.60.3.289\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eLou T, Yuan F, Feng Y, et al. The safety of fertility and ipsilateral ovary procedures for borderline ovarian tumors[J]. Oncotarget. 2017;8(70):115718\u0026ndash;29. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.18632/oncotarget.23021\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eHelpman L, Yaniv A, Beiner ME, et al. Fertility preservation in women with borderline ovarian tumors - how does it impact disease outcome? A cohort study[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(11):1300\u0026ndash;6. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/aogs.13203\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eLee SY, Choi MC, Kwon BR, et al. Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age[J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60(3):289\u0026ndash;95. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5468/ogs.2017.60.3.289\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eZhao J, Liu C, Liu J, et al. Short-term Outcomes and Pregnancy Rate After Laparoscopic Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Borderline Ovarian Tumors: A Single-Institute Experience[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(2):274\u0026ndash;8. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1097/IGC.0000000000001170\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eDarai E, Fauvet R, Uzan C, et al. Fertility and borderline ovarian tumor: a systematic review of conservative management, risk of recurrence and alternative options[J]. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(2):151\u0026ndash;66. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/humupd/dms047\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eSong T, Hun CC, Lee YY, et al. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes of cystectomy compared with oophorectomy as a treatment for borderline ovarian tumours[J]. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(8):2008\u0026ndash;14. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/humrep/der119\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003ePark JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, et al. Surgical management of borderline ovarian tumors: The role of fertility-sparing surgery[J]. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(1):75\u0026ndash;82. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.034\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eFauvet R, Poncelet C, Boccara J, et al. Fertility after conservative treatment for borderline ovarian tumors: a French multicenter study[J]. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(2):284\u0026ndash;90. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 525\u0026ndash;526.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eOuldamer L, Bendifallah S, Naoura I, et al. Nomogram to predict live birth rate after fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumours[J]. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(8):1732\u0026ndash;7. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/humrep/dew137\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cspan\u003eFauvet R, Poncelet C, Boccara J, et al. Fertility after conservative treatment for borderline ovarian tumors: a French multicenter study[J]. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(2):284\u0026ndash;90. DOI:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 525\u0026ndash;526.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Borderline ovarian tumor, Fertility-sparing surgery, Staging surgery, Survival state, Live birth","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-38990/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-38990/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo retrospectively evaluate the oncologic and obstetric outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) for borderline ovarian tumors(BOT).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e132 patients with borderline ovarian tumors were divided into the incompletely staging surgery (ISS) group and the completely staging surgery (CSS) group. The overall survival and disease-free survival curves were determined using the Kaplan\u0026ndash;Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards method was used to assess the association between the variables and live birth and multivariate analysis to identify the independent associations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eChi-square and Kaplan-Meier analyses showed no significant differences in overall survival between the two groups (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000 and \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.716, respectively). The CSS group had fewer relapses and longer disease-free survival than ISS (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003). There was no statistical difference in live birth rate between two groups (crude odds ratio\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.885, 95%CI 0.411\u0026ndash;1.903, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.755; adjusted odds ratio\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.848, 95%CI 0.366\u0026ndash;1.963, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.700). Age was the only independent risk factor for live birth (adjusted odds ratio\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.902, 95%CI 0.823\u0026ndash;0.988, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.027). Mean live birth intervals after FSS was 31.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19.325 months.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCSS significantly increased the disease-free survival time of BOT and reduced the relapse risk. However, CSS had a slightly negative and statistically insignificant association with live birth.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Oncologic and obstetric outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors in women of reproductive age: a retrospective cohort study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2020-07-02 11:12:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-38990/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8eb9dcf1-ec3b-46e6-b06e-05689fc32d81","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 2nd, 2020","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":139227,"name":"Sexual \u0026 Reproductive Medicine"},{"id":139228,"name":"Cancer Biology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2020-07-04T11:23:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2020-07-02 11:12:15","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-38990","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-38990","identity":"rs-38990","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"WrCJVZZCHTDjtuVLN7oU0","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}