All-cause and cancer-specific mortality after fertility-sparing surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause and cancer-specific mortality between women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) versus standard surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Reproductive aged patients (18-45) with stage IA or IC epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. FSS was defined as retention of the contralateral ovary and the uterus, and standard surgery included at least removal of both ovaries and the uterus. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to create two groups balanced on covariates of interest. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to model survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1119 women who met inclusion criteria, 390 (34.9%) underwent FSS. IPTW yielded a balanced cohort of 394 women who underwent FSS and 723 women who underwent standard surgery. Among patients who underwent FSS, there were 45 deaths corresponding to an 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.92) 10-year all-cause survival probability, compared to 81 deaths and 86.4% 10-year all-cause survival probability (95% CI 0.83-0.90) among patients who underwent standard surgery. FSS was not associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.72-1.49) or cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.50, 95%CI 0.97-2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Among reproductive-aged patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with an increased risk of death compared to standard surgery.

First trimester anatomy ultrasound for patients with obesity: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Second-trimester ultrasound is the standard technique for fetal anatomy evaluation in the United States despite international guidelines and literature that suggest that first-trimester timing may be superior in patients with obesity. First-trimester imaging performs well in cohorts of participants with obesity. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the completion rate of a first-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound scan with that of a second-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound scan among pregnant people with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m2. STUDY DESIGN: This randomized controlled trial enrolled participants with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 with a singleton gestation and who presented before 14+0/7 weeks of gestation. Participants were randomized to receive an ultrasound assessment of anatomy at either 12+0/7 to 13+6/7 weeks or at 18+0/7 to 22+6/7 weeks. The primary outcome was completion rate (percentage of scans that optimally imaged all the required fetal structures). Secondary outcomes included the necessity of a transvaginal approach, completion rates for each individual view, number of anomalies identified and missed in each group, scan duration, and patient perspectives. A 1-year pilot sample was analyzed using Bayesian methods for the primary outcome with a neutral prior and frequentist analyses for the remaining outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 128 participants were enrolled, and 1 withdrew consent; 62 subjects underwent a first-trimester ultrasound scan and 62 underwent a second-trimester ultrasound scan. A total of 2 participants did not attend the research visits, and 1 sought termination of pregnancy. In the first-trimester group, 66% (41/62) of ultrasound scans were completed in comparison with 53% (33/62) in the second-trimester ultrasound group (Bayesian relative risk, 1.20; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.73). When compared with a second-trimester scan plus a follow-up ultrasound, a first-trimester ultrasound plus a second-trimester ultrasound was equally successful in completing the anatomy views (76%). First-trimester anatomy ultrasound scans required a transvaginal approach in 63% (39/62) of cases and had a longer duration than a second-trimester ultrasound scan. No anomalies were missed in either group. First-trimester ultrasound participants who responded to a survey described that they were very satisfied with the technique. CONCLUSION: In pregnant subjects with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m2, a single first-trimester anatomy ultrasound scan was more likely to obtain all the recommended anatomic views than a single second-trimester ultrasound scan. An evaluation of anatomy at 12+0/7 to 13+6/7 weeks' gestation plus an evaluation at 18+0/7 to 22+6/7 led to complete anatomic evaluation 4 weeks earlier than 2 second trimester scans. Assessment of ultrasound duration in a clinical setting is needed to ensure feasibility outside of a research setting.

Assessing gaps in motherhood after cancer: development and psychometric testing of the Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale.

OBJECTIVE: With a growing population of young cancer survivors, there is an increasing need to address the gaps in evidence regarding cancer survivors' obstetric outcomes, fertility care access, and experiences. As part of a large research program, this study engaged survivors and experts in co-developing and testing the validity, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility of a scale to assess survivor-reported barriers to motherhood after cancer. METHODS: Scale items were developed based on literature and expert review of 226 reproductive health items, and six experience and focus groups with 26 survivors of breast and gynecological cancers. We then invited 128 survivors to complete the scale twice, 48 hours apart, and assessed the scale's psychometric properties using exploratory factor analyses including reliability, known-group validity, and convergent validity. RESULTS: Item development identified three primary themes: multifaceted barriers for cancer survivors; challenging decisions about whether and how to pursue motherhood; and a timely need for evidence about obstetric outcomes. Retained items were developed into a 24-item prototype scale with four subscales. Prototype testing showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.71) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70). Known-group validity was supported; the scale discriminated between groups by age (x=70.0 for patients ≥35 years old vs 54.5 for patients <35 years old, p=0.02) and years since diagnosis (x=71.5 for ≥6 years vs 54.3 for<6 years, p=0.01). The financial subscale was correlated with the Economic StraiN and Resilience in Cancer measure of financial toxicity (ρ=0.39, p<0.001). The scale was acceptable and feasibly delivered online. The final 22-item scale is organized in four subscales: personal, medical, relational, and financial barriers to motherhood. CONCLUSION: The Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale demonstrated validity, reliability, and was acceptable and feasible when delivered online. Implementing the scale can gather the data needed to inform shared decision making and to address disparities in fertility care for survivors.