scholarly journals Fertility-sparing surgery for patients with low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma

Oncotarget ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 10602-10608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weimin Xie ◽  
Dongyan Cao ◽  
Jiaxin Yang ◽  
Xuan Jiang ◽  
Keng Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Stromal Sarcoma ◽  
Fertility Sparing Surgery ◽  
Fertility Sparing

scholarly journals The prognosis of recurrent low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qianwen Dai ◽  
Baolin Xu ◽  
Huanwen Wu ◽  
Yan You ◽  
Ming Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma ◽  
Hormone Treatment ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Ovarian Preservation ◽  
Stromal Sarcoma ◽  
Fertility Sparing ◽  
First Recurrence

Abstract Background The prognosis of recurrent low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LGESS) is little known. This study was to investigate the survival outcomes of a cohort of patients with recurrent LGESS. Methods Patients with primary LGESS diagnosed and treated for first recurrence confirmed by histology in the study center from February 2012 to June 2019 were retrospectively included. The progression-free interval (PFI) after the last treatment for first recurrence and overall survival (OS) since the diagnosis of first recurrence, which were followed up to June 1, 2020, were compared between groups of various therapy modalities. Results Fifty-six patients were included, and 43 patients (76.8%) had definite follow-up outcomes. The 5-year PFI and OS rates were 30.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 29.2–30.8) and 75.0% (68.0–82.0), respectively. In univariate analysis, only fertility-sparing treatment, ovarian preservation and surgical treatment had a significant impact on the PFI (hazard ratio [HR] 4.5, 3.1, and 0.2; 95% CI 1.5–13.1, 1.3–7.3, and 0.1–0.7; and p = 0.006, 0.009 and 0.006, respectively), but no factor was found to be associated with increased mortality risk. After adjusted with hormone treatment or chemotherapy, surgical treatment had significant effectiveness on OS (HR 0.3 and 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–1.0 and 0.1–1.0, p = 0.045 and 0.049, respectively). None of the patients with fertility-sparing treatment had successful conception, and all experienced repeated relapse. Conclusion For patients with recurrent LGESS, fertility-sparing treatment or ovarian preservation should not be provided. Surgery is the treatment of choice, and hormone treatment and/or chemotherapy was effective for the survival benefits of surgical treatment.

Successful Pregnancy After Fertility-Sparing Local Resection and Uterine Reconstruction for Low-Grade Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma

2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (Part 2) ◽  
pp. 486-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail A. Delaney ◽  
Ashley L. Gubbels ◽  
Steve Remmenga ◽  
Paul Tomich ◽  
Kelly Molpus
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma ◽  
Local Resection ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Successful Pregnancy ◽  
Stromal Sarcoma ◽  
Fertility Sparing

scholarly journals CT, MRI, and FDG-PET imaging findings of low-grade extrauterine endometrial stromal sarcoma arising from the mesentery: A case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 2774-2779
Author(s):  
Satoshi Suzuki ◽  
Ryo Kurokawa ◽  
Tetsushi Tsuruga ◽  
Mayuyo Mori‑Uchino ◽  
Haruka Nishida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Pet Imaging ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Imaging Findings ◽  
Stromal Sarcoma

Fertility preservation in women with early ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Necula ◽  
Daria Istrate ◽  
Jérôme Mathis
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Organizational Issues ◽  
Fertility Sparing Surgery ◽  
Fertility Sparing ◽  
Early Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Reproductive Techniques

AbstractFertility preservation is an important option to consider for young women with low-grade early ovarian cancer. Fertility-sparing surgery (“FSS”) permits the conservation of the uterus and one of the ovaries. This technique is considered safe for stages IA G1, G2 and probably safe for IC G1 epithelial and non-epithelial ovarian cancers. There are still uncertainties and FSS is not fully accepted for stage IC G1, G2 and clear cell carcinoma. The difficulty in choosing the best option lies in the fact that there is a lack of prospective randomized studies, due to ethical and organizational issues. Retrospective studies and reviews showed reassuring results for FSS in terms of relapse and long term survival. The spontaneous pregnancy rate seems to decrease after FSS, but chemotherapy does not seem to have an impact on fertility rates. Compared with the general population, assisted reproductive techniques are considered safe and with similar fertility results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document