A.R.T
among women previously treated for borderline or early invasive ovarian tumor:
a french multi-center study
Eric
MENEUX1, M.D.
Jean-Marie ANTOINE2, Professor
Hervé FERNANDEZ3, Professor
Serge UZAN2, Professor
Patrick MADELENAT1, Professor
1
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Bichat-Claude Bernard University,
Paris - France
2 - Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Tenon Hospital
and Paris VI University, Paris - France
3 - Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Antoine Béclère
Hospital, Clamart - France
Reprint
requests :
Dr Eric MENEUX, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Bichat - Claude Bernard
University, 46 Rue Henri-Huchard 75877 PARIS Cedex 18, France
Phone : +33 1 46 24 33 38
Fax : +33 1 47 45 07 61
ABSTRACT
:
Background
: Borderline and early invase ovarian tumors frequently occur in young
women and are treated by conservative surgery. The presence of associated infertility
raises the question of a possible ovarian stimulation or A.R.T.
Methods : Between June and December 1997, all French public and private A.R.T.
centres were contacted by two letters, and in some cases by phone. A questionnaire
was sent to collect information on ovarian stimulation or IVF in woman previously
treated for borderline or early invasive ovarian tumor.
Results : 24 cycles of simple stimulation in 7 women achieved only one term
pregnancy (14.2%). In 22 women, 45 cycles were stimulated with the purpose of
performing an IVF. Eight clinical pregnancies resulted in the birth of 12 children.
There were no tumor recurrences. The mean duration of the follow-up was 46.7
± 36 months after the last ovarian stimulation and 114.7 ± 80
months after the initial treatment of the ovarian tumor.
Conclusions : Apart from cases in which contralateral ovariectomy or potentially
sterilizing chemotherapy are planned in the short-term, a minimum follow-up
period appears to be desirable. Specific information of the patient on the oncological
risks of ovarian stimulation is essential. Her written consent is compulsory.
ICSI appears to be the most effective method. Only long-term follow-up will
make it possible to determine whether ovarian stimulation can be considered
as an acceptable alternative in these patients.
Borderline
ovarian tumors constitute 4 to 14% of all ovarian carcinomas.1 They occur before
the age of 40 years in 30% to 50% of cases, and 85% of cases are discovered
during stage 1 of the disease.2 Their very favourable prognosis (93% 5-year
survival rate, 90% 10-year survival rate at stage 1) frequently allows treatment
by unilateral adnexectomy alone in young women.3-4 In cases of an invasive ovarian
tumor in young woman, conservative surgery is generally limited to stage 1 with
a favourable histological grade, after the patient has been fully informed.
After the initial treatment and after verification of the absence of recurrence,
permission for natural procreation is the logical consequence of this therapeutic
approach, especially as pregnancy reduces the risk of ovarian cancer.5-10 A
case study of 39 borderline ovarian tumors showed 22 spontaneous pregnancies
in 15 patients (38.5%) with a mean follow-up of 69 months, with no unfavourable
consequences either during the course of the pregnancy or on the development
of the ovarian disease.11 In an other study of 56 cases of invasive tumors treated
conservatively, 20 patients (35.7%) were able to conceive spontaneously and
gave birth to 17 children, with a mean follow-up of 7 years.12
However, the presence of associated infertility can raise the question of a
possible ovarian stimulation or A.R.T.. Several rare cases of ovarian stimulation
have been reported in the literature after conservative treatment for borderline
or invasive ovarian tumors.13-16 Several pregnancies were obtained, but in one
case a uterine recurrence was observed, and most importantly one woman died
7 months after ovarian stimulation, following extensive recurrence of an invasive
lesion. 13-15 However, we must emphasize that this tumor was initially a stage
1c, grade 3 tumor, possibly associated with peritoneal dissemination prior to
ovarian stimulation.
Based on our practice, we decided to conduct a multicentre survey in French
A.R.T. centres and to collect a maximum of analogous cases, in order to analyse
the modalities and results of infertility treatment, and to more precisely define
the conditions under which this practice could be regarded as acceptable.
MATERIALS
AND METHOD :
Between
June and December 1997, we contacted all French public and private A.R.T. centres
by two letters, and in some cases by phone. The following question was asked
: have you already had to perform simple ovarian stimulation or in vitro fertilization
in a woman previously treated for a borderline or early invasive ovarian tumor?
In the case of a positive reply, a questionnaire was sent to the centre to collect
information about each case. The first part of the questionnaire recorded the
patient's age at the time of cancer management, her gestational status and parity,
the presence of a family history of ovarian tumor, the histological type of
ovarian tumor, its FIGO stage and grade, the type of operation and associated
chemotherapy. The second part of the questionnaire concerned the patient's fertility
before and after treatment of the ovarian tumor, the probable cause of infertility,
its primary or secondary nature, its duration, the timing of ovarian stimulation
in relation to surgery and its modalities : simple stimulation or IVF, number
of cycles treated, number of oocytes, embryos and pregnancies obtained. The
last part indicated the presence or absence of recurrences of the ovarian tumor,
their treatment and the total duration of the follow-up.
RESULTS
Twenty-one
(21.6%) of the 97 centres questioned replied that they had previously performed
ovarian stimulation or A.R.T. after treatment of a known borderline or early
invasive ovarian tumor. A total of 26 cases were collected.
The mean age of the patients was 24.2 ± 7.4 years (18-34 years) at the
time of diagnosis of the ovarian tumor and 32.3 ± 5.5 years (24-38 years)
at the time of ovarian stimulation. The total number of pregnancies before treatment
was 0.38 ± 0.88 (0-4), and the number of children was 0.17 ± 0.48
(0-3). No woman had a family history of ovarian cancer, but two women had already
received treatment for infertility before the diagnosis of ovarian tumor (borderline
stage 1a and 1c).
Treatment of the cancer was surgical in 25 cases (TABLE 1), usually by laparoscopy
only (56%) and generally consisted of unilateral adnexectomy (88%). In 8 cases,
the ovarian tumor was discovered incidentally on the cyst resection specimen.
Surgery was completed by chemotherapy in 6 cases (1 borderline tumor, 2 invasive
carcinomas, 2 seminomas, 1 immature germ cell tumor) and by radiotherapy in
4 cases of seminoma. One woman presented an ovarian recurrence of thoracic seminoma,
and was treated exclusively by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The initial ovarian
tumor was discoverd at stage 1 in 14 cases out of 16 borderline tumors (87.5%)
and in 5 out of 10 invasive cancers (50%) (TABLE II).
Twenty-five cases presented an infertility, which was known before the discovery
of the cancer in 18 cases (72%), and appeared after treatment of the cancer
in 7 cases (28%) (TABLE III). In one other case, the woman did not express an
immediate desire for pregnancy, but she lived with her partner and preferred
to freeze embryos prior to potentially sterilizing chemotherapy.
In 4/26 cases (15.4%), ovarian stimulation was commenced immediately after the
initial surgery, before contralateral ovariectomy or chemotherapy. In the other
22 cases (84.6%), an observation period of 42 ± 60 months (6-88 months)
was respected.
Prior to IVF, 24 cycles of simple stimulation in 7 women achieved only one term
pregnancy (14.2%). During 45 IVF cycles in 22 women, the mean number of ampoules
of hMG or FSH (75 IU/ampoule) used was 31.5 ± 11.3 (14-56). Four cycles
were cancelled because of an insufficient ovarian response. During the other
41 cycles, the plasma oestradiol level on the day of HCG injection was 1,389.6
± 972.4 pg/ml (330-3,341). Punction enabled a mean of 8.7 ± 5.2
(1-18) oocytes and a mean of 4.7 ± 3.5 (1-15) embryos to be obtain. Eight
clinical pregnancies were obtained : one early spontaneous abortion and 7 term
pregnancies, with the birth of 12 children (2 sets of triplets and 1 set of
twins) (TABLE IV). Two thawed embryo transfers and 2 attempts of IVF during
a spontaneous cycle failed, but 2 other pregnancies (including a twin pregnancy)
resulted from 4 cycles with oocyte donation.
No tumor recurrence was demonstrated by imaging techniques, plasma marker assays,
or 6 second look operations (one after borderline tumor and 5 after invasive
cancer : 2 carcinomas, 1 teratoma, 1 seminoma and 1 complex immature germ cell
tumor). The mean duration of the follow-up was 46.7 ± 36 months after
the last ovarian stimulation and 114.7 ± 80 months after the initial
treatment of the ovarian tumor.
DISCUSSION
Infertility
is a frequent problem after conservative surgical treatment for ovarian tumor.
Only 15 out of 39 women (38.5%) with borderline ovarian tumors and 20 out of
56 women with invasive stage 1 tumors obtained at least one spontaneous pregnancy.11-12
In the 25 patients of our series, the cause of infertility was tubal in 11 cases
(44%), male in 5 cases (25%), ovarian in 2 cases (8%) and unexplained in 7 cases
(28%). Chemotherapy, administered in only 6 cases (24%), therefore did not appear
to play an important role. On the other hand, the initial surgery may have been
responsible for adhesional sequelae in some cases. But, the main cause seems
to be the epidemiological link between ovarian tumor and infertility.6,7
The possible links between ovarian stimulation and the risk of borderline or
invasive ovarian tumors remain highly controversial.17 Several studies have
suggested an increased risk after ovarian stimulation.6,7,18-20 However, other
studies have not demonstrated any increased risk.21-24 In fact, most authors
consider that infertility itself is associated with an increased risk of ovarian
tumor, while pregnancy provides a protective effect. In our series of 26 cases,
the largest reported series to our knowledge, no tumor recurrence was demonstrated
even after a follow-up of 46.7 ± 36 months after the last ovarian stimulation.
In practice, when ovarian stimulation is considered in this clinical context,
certain precautions in our opinion must be respected. Apart from cases in which
contralateral ovariectomy or potentially sterilizing chemotherapy are planned
in the short-term, a minimum follow-up period appears to be desirable. It must
take into account the patient's age and the characteristics of the ovarian tumor.
Recurrences of borderline ovarian tumors are rare, but sometimes occur very
late.3-4 We suggest a follow-up period of 12 to 24 months before stimulation.
After an invasive the indication for ovarian stimulation always remains highly
controversial tumor and should be strictly limited to a few stage 1, grade 1
tumors, for which the mean time for recurrence is 18 months.25 In all cases,
it is essential to verify the absence of tumor recurrence before stimulation,
by ultrasonography, abdominopelvic CT scan, plasma CA 125 and CEA assays, or
even by systematic second look laparoscopy, which should be routinely indicated
in this particular context. Specific information of the patient on the oncological
risks of ovarian stimulation is essential. Her written consent is compulsory.
Simple stimulations and conventional IVF have given only limited success rates
in our series. ICSI appears to be more effective, but sample sizes are too limited
to allow the systematic use of this technique to be recommended in women who
have been previously treated for ovarian tumor. Oocyte donation constitutes
an effective alternative in the case of failure and justifies preservation of
the uterus whenever possible, even in cases of bilateral ovariectomy.16,26,27
Before or after ovarian stimulation, oral contraception must be prescribed in
order to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. After the desired pregnancies have
been obtained or after the definitive discontinuation of infertility treatment,
hysterectomy with contralateral adnexectomy should be considered in some cases
with an initial invasive or high grade borderline tumor.
Only long-term follow-up will make it possible to determine whether ovarian
stimulation can be considered as an acceptable alternative in these patients.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS :
For this multicentric study, data were also obtained from Clinique Ste Thérèse
de l'Enfant Jésus AMIENS (Dr BALLOT), Clinique de La Dhuys BAGNOLET (Dr
CORNET), Clinique Saint Antoine BOIS-GUILLAUME (Dr AVRIL), Polyclinique CLERMONT-FERRAND
(Pr POULY), Centre d'A.M.P. GRENOBLE (Dr SAGE), Centre d'A.M.P. LILLE (Dr BUVAT,
Dr MARCOLIN), Centre Hospitalo-universitaire de LYON (Dr BOULIEU), Hôpital
de la Conception MARSEILLE (Pr GAMERRE), Centre Hospitalier Arnaud de Villeneuve
MONTPELLIER (Pr HEDON), Centre d'A.M.P. MULHOUSE (Dr LAMARCA-ROTH), Clinique
Notre-Dame de Grâce NANTES (Dr POUSSET), Hôpital Cochin PARIS (Pr
ZORN, Pr DUBUISSON), Hôpital des Diaconesses PARIS (Dr ROUBACH), Hôpital
Pitié-Salpétrière PARIS (Dr LEFEBVRE), Polyclinique Courlancy
REIMS (Dr GIACOMINI), Centre Oberthür RENNES (Dr PRIOU), Hôpital
Jean Rostand SEVRES (Dr BELAISCH-ALLART), Centre d'A.M.P. VALENCE (Dr GILLIOZ).
The authors would like to thank all the clinicians for their valuable collaboration.
TABLE I :
OVARIAN TUMORS SURGICAL MANAGEMENT (n = 25 cases)
SURGICAL
PROCEDURE : n = 25
|
- Laparoscopy
only : n = 14 (56%)
- Laparotomy only : n = 4 (16%)
- Laparoscopy followed by laparotomy : n = 7 (28%) |
OVARIAN
SURGERY : n = 25 |
- Unilateral
adnexectomy : n = 22 (88%)
- Unilateral cystectomy : n = 2 (8%)
- Bilateral cystectomy : n = 1 (4%) |
ASSOCIATED
SURGICAL TREATMENTS : n = 7 |
-
Lymph nodes removal : n = 3 (12%)
- Omentectomy : n = 4 (16%) |
TABLE
II :
OVARIAN TUMORS FIGO STAGE AND HISTOLOGY
HISTOLOGY
|
FIGO
STAGE |
|
1a
|
1b
|
1c
|
2a
|
2b
|
2c
|
3
|
BORDERLINE
TUMORS (n = 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
SEROUS (n = 10) |
5
|
1
|
2
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
1
|
.
MUCINOUS (n = 3) |
3
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
.
MIXED (n = 3) |
2
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
INVASIVE
TUMORS (n = 10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
SEMINOMA (n = 5) |
3
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
.
EPITHELIAL (n = 3) |
1
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
.
IMMATURE TERATOMA (n = 1) |
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
.
IMMATURE DYSGERMINOMA (n = 1) |
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
TABLE
III :
INFERTILITY FEATURES (n = 25 infertile women)
TYPE OF INFERTILITY
|
known
before the discovery of the cancer n = 18 (72%)
appeared after treatment of the cancer n = 7 (28%) |
PRIMARY
SECONDARY |
12.
6
|
61
|
TUBAL |
9
|
2
|
UNEXPLAINED |
4
|
3
|
MALE
|
5
|
0
|
OVARIAN |
0
|
2
|
TABLE
IV :
INFERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS
INFERTILITY
MANAGEMENT
PREGNANCIES
|
TREATED
CYCLES
|
TERM
|
SIMPLE
OVARIAN STIMULATION |
24
|
1
(4,2%)
|
IN
VITRO FERTILISATION |
|
|
-
CONVENTIONAL IVF |
33
|
4
(12,1%) (2 triple)
|
-
ICSI procedure |
8
|
3
(37,5%) (1 twin)
|
-
thawed embryo transfers |
2
|
0
|
OOCYTE
DONATION AFTER IVF FAILURE |
4
|
2
(50%) (1 twin)
|
REFERENCES
:
1.
BARAKAT RR : Borderline tumours of the ovary. Obstet Gynecol Clin. North Am
1994; 21 :93-105.
2. CASEY AC, BELL DA, LAGE JM, et al.: Epithelial ovarian tumours of borderline
malignancy : long-term follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 12 :120-127
3. BjOrge T, Engeland A, Hansen S, et al.: Prognosis of patients with ovarian
cancer and borderline tumours diagnosed in Norway between 1954 and 1993. Int
J Cancer 1998;75:663-70
4. Manchul LA., Simm J, Levin W, et al.: Borderline epithelial ovarian tumours
: a review of 81 cases with an assessment of the impact of treatment. Int J
Radiation Oncol. Biol Phys 1992; 22 : 867-874
5. Negri E., Franceschi S., Tzonou A., et al.: Pooled analysis of 3 european
case-control studies : I; Reproductive factors and risk of epithelial ovarian
cancer. Int J Cancer 1991; 49:50 - 56
6. WHITTEMORE AS, HARRIS R, INTYRE J, et al.: Characteristics relating to ovarian
cancer risk : collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. II Invasive
epithelial ovarian cancers in white women. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 136 :1184-1203
7. 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. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 136 :1204-1210
8. Adami HO, Hsieh CC, Lambe M, et al.: Parity, age at first childbirth, and
risk of ovarian cancer. Lancet 1994 ; 344 :1250-1254
9. Risch HA, Marrett LD, Howe GR: Parity, contraception, infertility, and the
risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140:585-597
10. MOSGAARD BJ, LIDEGAARD O, KJAER SK, et al.: Infertility, fertility drugs
and invasive ovarian cancer : a case-control study. Fertil Steril 1997; 67:1005-1012
11. Gotlieb WH, Flikker S, Davidson B, et al.: Borderline tumours of the ovary:
fertility treatment, conservative management, and pregnancy outcome. Cancer
1998; 82:141-146
12. Zanetta G, Chiari S, Rota S, et al.: Conservative surgery for stage I ovarian
carcinoma in women of childbearing age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104:1030-1035
13. Nijman HW, Burger CW, Baak JPA., et al.: Borderline malignancy of the ovary
and controlled hyperstimulation, a report of 2 cases. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28
:1971-1973
14. MANTZAVINOS T, KANAKAS N, GENATAS C, et al.: Five years' follow up in two
patients with borderline tumours of the ovary hyperstimulated by gonadotrophin
therapy for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1994 ; 9 :2032-2033
15. BANDERA CA: Fertility therapy in the setting of a history of invasive epithelial
ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 58 :116-119
16. Pouly JL, Janny L, Pouly Vye P, et al.: Successful oocyte donation after
stage 1C serous ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 1997 ; 12 :1589-1590
17. NUGENT D, SALHA O, BALEN AH, et al.: Ovarian neoplasia and subfertility
treatments. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105:584-59
18. ROSSING MA, DALING JR, WEISS NS, et al.: Ovarian tumor in a cohort of infertile
women. N Engl J Med 1994 ; 331 :771-776
19. SUSHAN A: Human menopausal gonadotropin and the risk of epithelial ovarian
cancer. Fertil Steril 1996 ; 65 :13-19
20. Parazzini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C, et al.: Treatment for fertility and
risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Hum Reprod 1997 ; 12 :2159-2161
21. FRANCESCHI S, LA VECCHIA C, NEGRI E: Fertility drugs and risk of epithelial
ovarian cancer in Italy. Hum Reprod 1994 ; 9 :1673-1675
22. VENN A, WATSON L, LUMLEY J, et al.: Breast and ovarian cancer incidence
after infertility and in vitro fertilization. Lancet 1995 ; 346 :995-1000
23. MOSGAARD BJ, LIDEGAARD O, KJAER SK, et al.: Ovarian stimulation and borderline
ovarian tumors : a case-control study. Fertil Steril 1998, 70, 1049-1055
24. Modan B, Ron E, Lerner-Geva L : Cancer incidence in a cohort of infertile
women. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:1038-1042
25. Raymond E, Drolet Y, Marpeau L., et al.: Long-term follow-up after adjuvant
chemotherapy in completely resected early stage ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Obstet
Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997 ; 72 :181-190
26. Lawal AH, Lynch CB: Borderline ovarian cancer, bilateral surgical castration,
chemotherapy and a normal delivery after ovum donation and in vitro fertilisation-embryo
transfer. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1996 ; 103 :931-932
27. El-Sharkawi S, Bowen-Simpkins P: Borderline ovarian cancer, bilateral surgical
castration, chemotherapy and a normal delivery after ovum donation and in vitro
fertilisation-embryo transfer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997 ; 104 :760
28.
|