Sexual satisfaction and quality of life in survivors of localized cervical and ovarian cancers following fertility-sparing surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if sexual satisfaction and sexual quality of life (QOL) are different in survivors of localized cervical and ovarian cancers who undergo fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) as compared with standard surgery. METHODS: 470 survivors of localized cervical and ovarian cancers diagnosed between the ages of 18-40 were recruited from the California Cancer Registry to complete a cross-sectional survey. Validated questionnaires were used to assess sexual satisfaction and sexual QOL. RESULTS: 228 women with localized cervical cancer and 125 with localized ovarian cancer completed the survey. In the cervical cancer group, 92 underwent FSS. Compared with the 84 women who did not undergo FSS (had a hysterectomy, but retained at least one ovary), there was no significant difference in sexual satisfaction or sexual QOL mean scores in women who maintained their uterus (cold-knife cone or trachelectomy), after controlling for age and menopausal status. 82 women with ovarian cancer underwent FSS. Compared with the 39 women that had a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, we found no significant differences in sexual satisfaction or sexual QOL in women who maintained at least one ovary (USO or cystectomy), after controlling for age and menopausal status. CONCLUSIONS: While FSS may allow for post-treatment fertility, it may not confer a significant benefit with regard to sexual satisfaction or sexual QOL. Thus, the decision to perform FSS should not be dictated based on preservation of sexual functioning.

Fertility Sparing Surgery for Localized Ovarian Cancers Maintains an Ability to Conceive, but is Associated With Diminished Reproductive Potential.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about fertility outcomes after fertility sparing surgery (FSS) for localized ovarian cancers. METHODS: A random sample of 783 women treated for ovarian cancer were identified from the California Cancer Registry for survey (age 18-40 years at diagnosis; diagnosed from 1993-2007). We evaluated outcomes including post-treatment amenorrhea, infertility, early menopause (age <45), and disease recurrence. Logistic regression was used to determine the probability of amenorrhea, infertility, and recurrence. Censored data methods were used to determine the probability of early menopause. RESULTS: A total of 382 women replied. One hundred and sixteen and 266 completed our survey. Two hundred and forty-five reported treatment with potential to impact fertility (i.e., systemic chemotherapy ± radiation/surgery to the abdomen/pelvis). A total of 125 had disease/stage eligible for FSS and 82 (66%) underwent FSS. While many who attempted conception did conceive, 32% did not. Younger age at diagnosis was associated with higher rates of early menopause (P < 0.001) after FSS. Recurrence rates for those undergoing FSS were 8-10%, while none of the women who underwent non-FSS surgery had a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: FSS maintains an ability to conceive for most patients. However, after FSS, there may be risks of infertility, early menopause with earlier age of treatment, and increased probability of disease recurrence.

Cancer survivors of gynecologic malignancies are at risk for decreased opportunity for fertility preservation.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors rate fertility as one of the most important determinants of their quality of life in the years after cancer treatment. We seek to describe the reproductive goals of women affected by gynecologic cancers and investigate their specific challenges during fertility preservation (FP) counseling. METHODS: Univariate & multivariate logistic regression were used for quantitative analysis of objective FP counseling measures between women with gynecologic (GYN) and non-gynecologic (non-GYN) cancers from a cross sectional survey. Framework analysis was conducted on patient perception of physician-patient interactions. RESULTS: Of the 2537 women contacted, 1892 responded and 1686 reported treatment with potential to impact fertility. Among women with GYN cancers 52% wanted future children. Women <35 years were interested in FP (74%). Women with Gyn cancers received less FP counseling than women with non Gyn cancer (OR 0.5 95% CI 0.4-0.6). Three hundred twenty-four patients gave qualitative answers. Patient identified barriers included incomplete FP information (59%), nondisclosure (29%), a disinterest in FP (5%), and a perceived urgency to start treatment (7%). CONCLUSIONS: Women with gynecologic cancers are less likely to be counseled about FP in comparison to women not affected by gynecologic cancers despite having similar fertility goals. We have identified patient perceived barriers to optimal FP counseling which may be improved upon to increase the value of FP and optimize quality of life for cancer survivors of gynecologic malignancies.

Regret around fertility choices is decreased with pre-treatment counseling in gynecologic cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Data have demonstrated an association between regret and lack of fertility counseling among patients undergoing treatment for non-gynecologic cancers. We sought to determine if fertility-related regret is reduced with pre-treatment counseling or fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) in patients with gynecologic cancers. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 593 reproductive-age survivors (18-40 years old at diagnosis) of localized cervix, ovarian, or endometrial cancers that were eligible for FSS. A validated decision regret score was used to evaluate regret in patients. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy women completed the survey. Forty-six percent received pre-treatment counseling about treatment's effects on fertility. Having received counseling (adjusted ß-coefficient of -1.24, 95 % CI = -2.29 to -0.18, p = 0.02), satisfactory counseling (adjusted ß-coefficient of -2.71, 95 % CI = -3.86 to -1.57, p < 0.001), and FSS (adjusted ß-coefficient of -1.26, 95 % CI = -2.39 to -0.14, p = 0.03) were associated with lower regret post-treatment, after adjusting for age. Time since diagnosis, prior parity, socioeconomic status and cancer type were not associated with regret (p > 0.05). While 50 % of women reported desiring more children after diagnosis, desire for children after treatment was associated with increased regret (adjusted ß-coefficient of 3.97, 95 % CI = 2.92-5.02, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though less than half of study participants received counseling about the effect of cancer treatment on future fertility, both fertility counseling and FSS were associated with decreased regret in reproductive-aged women with gynecologic cancers. The desire for more children after treatment was associated with increased regret. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Inquiring about fertility desires and providing counseling regarding reproductive outcomes following cancer treatment should be implemented as part of the treatment process.

Temporal dissection of tumorigenesis in primary cancers.

Timely intervention for cancer requires knowledge of its earliest genetic aberrations. Sequencing of tumors and their metastases reveals numerous abnormalities occurring late in progression. A means to temporally order aberrations in a single cancer, rather than inferring them from serially acquired samples, would define changes preceding even clinically evident disease. We integrate DNA sequence and copy number information to reconstruct the order of abnormalities as individual tumors evolve for 2 separate cancer types. We detect vast, unreported expansion of simple mutations sharply demarcated by recombinative loss of the second copy of TP53 in cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC) and serous ovarian adenocarcinomas, in the former surpassing 50 mutations per megabase. In cSCCs, we also report diverse secondary mutations in known and novel oncogenic pathways, illustrating how such expanded mutagenesis directly promotes malignant progression. These results reframe paradigms in which TP53 mutation is required later, to bypass senescence induced by driver oncogenes.