Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 12  No. 05 ( 2022 ), Article ID: 51458 , 7 pages
10.12677/ACM.2022.125626

子宫切除术与上皮性卵巢癌相关性临床研究

吕广伟,于新平,赵飞,王黎明*

青岛大学附属医院妇科,山东 青岛

收稿日期:2022年4月18日;录用日期:2022年5月13日;发布日期:2022年5月20日

摘要

目的:探讨子宫切除术与散在上皮性卵巢癌(EOC)患病风险的关系;方法:采用以住院患者为基础的病例对照研究,选取青岛大学附属医院2015-01-01~2021-01-01间首次确诊的原发性EOC患者974人作为病例组和985名年龄相匹配的同期住院非卵巢癌患者作为对照组,将2组的一般情况、病例特点和既往子宫切除情况进行比较;结果:2组患者的体重指数、月经初潮年龄、绝经年龄、产次、服用口服避孕药和吸烟等因素比较差异均无统计学意义,均P > 0.05;病例组的子宫切除术(OR = 1.748, 95% CI 1.224~2.498, P = 0.028)发生率均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义;2组患者子宫切除术的手术路径比较差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 9.083, P = 0.011);对于既往是否行子宫切除术,II型EOC的既往子宫切除率明显高于对照组(OR = 1.850, 95% CI 1.286~2.660, P = 0.001),差异有统计学意义;结论:子宫切除术可能增加患EOC的风险,主要增加II型EOC患病风险。开腹子宫切除术比腹腔镜、经阴手术的影响或许更为显著。

关键词

子宫切除术,上皮性卵巢癌,手术路径

Correlation of Hysterectomy and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Guangwei Lv, Xinping Yu, Fei Zhao, Liming Wang*

Department of Gynecology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao Shangong

Received: Apr. 18th, 2022; accepted: May 13th, 2022; published: May 20th, 2022

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the relationship between hysterectomy and the risk of in sporadic epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: In a case-control study based on hospitalized patients, 974 patients with primary EOC diagnosed for the first time in the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2021 were selected as the case group and 985 age-matched non-ovarian cancer patients as the control group. The basic conditions and previous hysterectomy of the two groups were compared. Results: There was no significant difference in terms of body mass index, menarche age, menopause age, parity, taking oral contraceptives and smoking between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of hysterectomy (OR = 1.748, 95% CI 1.224~2.498, P = 0.028) in case group were higher than the control group, the difference was statistically significant. There was significant difference in hysterectomy surgery path between the two groups (χ2 = 9.083, P = 0.011). For hysterectomy, there was significant difference between Type II EOC and the control group (OR = 1.850, 95% CI 1.286~2.660, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Hysterectomy may increase the risk of EOC and mainly increase the risk of Type II EOC. The effect of open hysterectomy is more significant than that of laparoscopy and transvaginal surgery.

Keywords:Hysterectomy, Epithelial Ovarian Cancer, Surgical Approach

Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

卵巢癌是全球女性癌症死亡的第八大常见原因,占癌症死亡人数的4.7%。2020年我国约有55,300例女性被确诊为卵巢癌,约37,500例女性死于卵巢癌 [1]。上皮性卵巢癌(epithelial ovarian cancer, EOC)占所有卵巢恶性肿瘤的90%。卵巢癌由于其症状不典型,通常在疾病的晚期才被确诊,目前还没有有效的筛查方法可用于检测这种疾病 [2]。

之前,大多数研究表明,保留至少一个卵巢的子宫切除术可以将发生EOC的风险降低20%~40% [3]。子宫切除术究竟如何降低风险还不确定,尽管已经提出了几种潜在的机制,包括阻断通过女性生殖道的致癌物 [4] 和由于排卵减少而改变激素水平 [5] [6]。然而,最近几年的研究报道指出,子宫切除术是EOC的一个危险因素 [7]。与2000年之前发表的大多数研究相反,在过去十多年发表的研究中,研究人员观察到子宫切除术后EOC风险略有增加 [8] [9] [10] [11]。国内子宫切除术与EOC发病风险的相关研究较少,且尚未检索到国内子宫切除术的手术路径与卵巢癌患病风险的相关研究。我们利用青岛大学附属医院计算机数据库收集分析了974名卵巢癌患者和985名非卵巢癌患者,现报道如下。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 病例选择

本研究是依据青岛大学附属医院2015-01-01~2021-01-01间首次确诊的原发性EOC患者和同期在本院住院并未诊断为卵巢癌的患者进行的病例对照研究。病例资料来源为青岛大学附属医院计算机数据库。病例组纳入标准:在过去6年内被组织病理学诊断为上皮性卵巢癌的偶发患者。对照组纳入标准:为同期在本院住院并未诊断为卵巢癌的患者,选自康复科、呼吸科、消化科、眼科和骨科,与卵巢癌患者进行一对一的年龄匹配。排除标准:有癌症个人病史、一级亲属中患有妇科恶性肿瘤、乳腺癌或结肠癌和病历信息记录不全的患者。根据纳入和排除标准,最终选取符合条件的974名患者作为病例组,985名患者作为对照组。

2.2. 收集指标

详细分析了患者的病例特点,包括出生日期、体重指数、个人和家族癌症史、吸烟史、月经和生育史、口服避孕药的使用情况、子宫内膜异位症、慢性盆腔炎相关情况、子宫切除时的年龄、子宫切除的手术指征、子宫切除的手术路径、输卵管和卵巢的相关情况,以及卵巢癌患者的病理特点,病理诊断标准来源于国际妇产科联合会推荐的国际卵巢肿瘤组织学分类。

2.3. 统计学方法

数据分析采用 SPSS 25.0统计分析软件。计量资料记录结果用 x ¯ ± 表示,t值检验;计数资料采用n(%)表示,用χ2检验,若理论频数小于5或总样本小于40则采用Fisher精确概率法。采用二元条件Logistic回归分析计算优势比。组间差异经P值判断,如果P < 0.05,则认为比较具有统计学意义。

3. 结果

3.1. 比较两组患者的一般情况

病例组和对照组患者的一般情况如表1所示。我们分析了974例卵巢癌患者和985例非卵巢癌患者。两组年龄匹配,体重指数、月经初潮年龄、绝经年龄、产次、服用口服避孕药和吸烟等因素在两组间差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。

Table 1. Comparison of case group and the control group in general situation

表1. 病例组和对照组患者的一般情况比较

3.2. 比较两组患者的既往病史及手术情况

我们首先进行了单因素分析,筛选出与EOC患病风险相关的可能危险因素进行多因素条件Logistic回归分析。最终有四个因素进入回归模型,包括子宫切除术、子宫内膜异位症、输卵管结扎术和慢性盆腔炎,整个模型具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。我们发现以下因素与EOC的发生相关,子宫切除术(OR = 1.748, 95% CI 1.224~2.498)和子宫内膜异位症(OR = 1.554, 95% CI 1.073~2.249)会增加EOC的患病率,输卵管结扎术会降低EOC的患病率(OR = 0.750, 95% CI 0.580~0.970)。慢性盆腔炎与EOC患病率没有相关性(P > 0.05),见表2

3.3. 比较两组患者子宫切除相关情况

分析两组患者子宫切除的原因和子宫切除的年龄时,病例组和对照组没有明显差异(P > 0.05)。收集的患者行子宫切除手术的路径有三种:腹腔镜、开腹和经阴道,我们分析发现不同手术路径会影响EOC

Table 2. Comparison of the medical history and operation situation between the two groups

表2. 两组患者的既往病史及手术情况比较

的发病风险(P < 0.05),病例组中开腹手术所占的比例远高于对照组。子宫切除的类型在病例组和对照组中没有明显差异(P > 0.05),但仅有的3例全子宫加双侧输卵管切除患者全部在对照组中,这或许也印证了卵巢癌起源的“二元论”学说。详见表3

Table 3. Comparison of relevant information of hysterectomy between the two groups

表3. 两组患者子宫切除相关情况的比较

3.4. I型和II型EOC与对照组比较

根据临床病理和分子遗传学特征,EOC可分为I型和II型,I型EOC组织学类型包括低级别浆液性癌、低级别子宫内膜样癌、粘液性癌及透明细胞癌等,II型EOC组织学类型主要为高级别浆液性癌和高级别子宫内膜样癌。我们分析了974例卵巢癌患者,其中Ⅰ型占20.53% (N = 200),Ⅱ型占79.47% (N = 774)。分别与对照组对比发现,子宫切除术对I型EOC患病风险没有影响(OR = 0.907, 95% CI 0.454~1.814),但是II型EOC的危险因素(OR = 1.850, 95% CI 1.286~2.660)。见表4

Table 4. Comparison of type I EOC and type II EOC with control group

表4. I型和II型EOC与对照组比较

4. 讨论

我们的大多数研究结果与近几年的发现类似。D. Cibula等人对13项严格选择的研究进行的荟萃分析显示,输卵管结扎术使EOC的风险降低了34% [12],我们的研究也表明输卵管结扎术会降低EOC的患病风险(OR = 0.750, 95% CI 0.580~0.970)。之前有研究表明,尽管多数子宫内膜异位症为良性病变,但仍有少数可发生恶变,子宫内膜异位症的总体恶变率约为1%,实际恶变率可能更高 [13]。我们病例组中子宫内膜异位症患病率高于对照组,且差异比较有统计学意义。至于子宫切除术对EOC患病风险的研究,Tomor Harnod等人的一项中国台湾地区人群队列研究结果显示,接受妇科手术切除子宫的妇女患卵巢癌的风险增加,特别是在伴有子宫内膜异位症、慢性盆腔炎和异位妊娠等妇科合并症的妇女中 [14]。Maria Paula Ruiz等人的研究支持这样的假设,即除排卵外,其他类型的腹膜损伤可能会增加EOC的患病风险,I型和II型EOC的患病风险在子宫切除术后均增加 [15],我们的结果却发现子宫切除术只增加II型EOC的患病风险,具体原因尚不明确。以前的一些研究表明,年龄较小时(<45岁或<50岁)行子宫切除术可能与降低卵巢癌风险有关 [3]。然而,我们的研究发现行子宫切除时患者的年龄在病例组和对照组中没有明显差异(P > 0.05)。

子宫切除术如何增加EOC患病风险,机制尚不明确。炎症被认为是多种恶性肿瘤的诱因,如肝癌、食道癌、前列腺癌和宫颈癌 [16] [17] [18] [19],在卵巢癌中,与排卵相关的卵泡破裂和修复引起的炎症被认为是一种致病事件 [20]。我们的研究结果表明,与EOC相关的炎症反应不仅是排卵引起的,子宫切除术导致的炎症反应或许也增加了卵巢癌的患病风险。Neal M Lonky等人在一项良性子宫切除术与手术入路相关的并发症和导致术后90天内再入院的研究表明,最常见的术后并发症是盆腔脓肿。盆腔脓肿在开腹全子宫切除术中更为常见(P = 0.002) [21]。我们的分析结果显示,病例组中开腹手术所占的比例远高于对照组,或许开腹手术后盆腔炎症发生率较高增加了卵巢癌的患病风险。

另一种假设是子宫切除手术指征是卵巢癌发病的危险因素(研究中最常见的手术指征包括子宫肌瘤、子宫腺肌病、子宫脱垂、子宫内膜和宫颈良性肿瘤)。先前的研究表明子宫腺肌病与子宫内膜癌的风险相关(HR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.51~3.16) [22]。另一项研究也显示子宫腺肌病与OC的风险相关(HR = 5.50, 95% CI 1.95~15.50) [23]。盆底疾病也与妇科恶性肿瘤相关 [24]。这些患者由于良性指征而接受了子宫切除术,这些指征可能导致未来卵巢恶性肿瘤的发生。

还有一种假设是子宫切除对女性激素造成了一定的影响。一方面,接受子宫切除术的妇女比没有接受子宫切除术的妇女更常进行绝经后激素补充治疗(menopause hormone therapy, MHT),而MHT与卵巢癌风险的适度增加有关 [25]。两项大型研究报告表明,子宫切除与曾经使用MHT的人患卵巢癌的风险略有增加有关,但在从不使用MHT的人中,卵巢癌的风险降低 [26] [27]。因为我们回顾的病史资料中没有涉及患者MHT相关信息,所以没有对此进行分析验证。另一方面,子宫切除可能会对下丘脑–垂体–卵巢轴(hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis, HPO)产生一定的影响。Tomor Harnod等人推测,除卵巢切除外,子宫切除可能扰乱HPO轴的负反馈调节,从而导致促性腺激素分泌过多和卵巢内激素过度活动 [28]。

综上,子宫切除术或许会增加EOC的患病风险,开腹子宫切除术可能影响更大,但具体机制尚未明确。本研究为回顾性研究,且样本量相对较少,这需要更多的研究去获得确凿的证据来证实这一假设,从而更好地指导临床实践。

文章引用

吕广伟,于新平,赵 飞,王黎明. 子宫切除术与上皮性卵巢癌相关性临床研究
Correlation of Hysterectomy and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer[J]. 临床医学进展, 2022, 12(05): 4324-4330. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2022.125626

参考文献

  1. 1. Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68, 394-424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

  2. 2. Lutz, A., Willmann, J., Drescher, C., et al. (2011) Early Diagnosis of Ovarian Carcinoma: Is a Solution in Sight? Radiology, 259, 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11090563

  3. 3. Jordan, S., Nagle, C., Coory, M., et al. (2013) Has the Association between Hysterectomy and Ovarian Cancer Changed over Time? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 49, 3638-3647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.07.005

  4. 4. Green, A., Purdie, D., Bain, C., et al. (1997) Tubal Sterilisation, Hysterectomy and Decreased Risk of Ovarian Cancer. Survey of Women’s Health Study Group. International Journal of Cancer, 71, 948-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19970611)71:6<948::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-Y

  5. 5. Cattanach, J. (1985) Oestrogen Deficiency after Tubal Ligation. The Lancet (London, England), 1, 847-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92209-3

  6. 6. Moorman, P., Myers, E., Schildkraut, J., et al. (2011) Effect of Hysterectomy with Ovarian Preservation on Ovarian Function. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 118, 1271-1279. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318236fd12

  7. 7. Pike, M.C., Pearce, C.L., Peters, R., et al. (2004) Hormonal Factors and the Risk of Invasive Ovarian Cancer: A Population-Based Case-Control Study. Fertil Steril, 82, 186-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.03.013

  8. 8. Ness, R., Dodge, R., Edwards, R., et al. (2011) Contraception Methods, Beyond Oral Contraceptives and Tubal Ligation, and Risk of Ovarian Cancer. Annals of Epidemiology, 21, 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.002

  9. 9. Jordan, S., Green, A., Whiteman, D., et al. (2008) Serous Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Primary Peritoneal Cancers: A Comparative Epidemiological Analysis. International Jour-nal of Cancer, 122, 1598-1603. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23287

  10. 10. Mills, P., Riordan, D. and Cress, R. (2004) Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk by Invasiveness and Cell Type in the Central Valley of California. Gynecologic Oncology, 95, 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.07.012

  11. 11. Moorman, P., Palmieri, R., Akushevich, L., et al. (2009) Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors in African-American and White Women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 170, 598-606. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp176

  12. 12. Cibula, D., Widschwendter, M., Májek, O., et al. (2011) Tubal Ligation and the Risk of Ovarian Cancer: Review and Meta-Analysis. Human Reproduction Update, 17, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq030

  13. 13. Matias-Guiu, X. and Stewart, C. (2018) Endometriosis-Associated Ovarian Neoplasia. Pathology, 50, 190-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2017.10.006

  14. 14. Harnod, T., Tsai, I., Chen, W., et al. (2019) Hysterectomy and Unilateral Salpingectomy Associate with a Higher Risk of Subsequent Ovarian Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Taiwan. Medicine, 98, e18058. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000018058

  15. 15. Ruiz, M., Morales-Ramirez, P., Dziadek, O., et al. (2016) Epithelial Ovarian Cancer and Type of Peritoneal Insult: A Case-Control Study. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gyne-cology, and Reproductive Biology, 205, 170-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.494

  16. 16. Carvalho, J. and Carvalho, F. (2008) Is Chlamydia-Infected Tu-bal Fimbria the Origin of Ovarian Cancer? Medical Hypotheses, 71, 690-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.06.028

  17. 17. Ness, R. and Cottreau, C. (1999) Possible Role of Ovarian Epi-thelial Inflammation in Ovarian Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91, 1459-1467. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.17.1459

  18. 18. Quirk, J. and Kupinski, J. (2001) Chronic Infection, Inflammation, and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Medical Hypotheses, 57, 426-428. https://doi.org/10.1054/mehy.2001.1326

  19. 19. Idahl, A., Lundin, E., Elgh, F., et al. (2010) Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Human Papillomavirus, and Polyomavirus Are Not Detectable in Human Tissue with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer, Borderline Tu-mor, or Benign Conditions. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 202, 71.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.042

  20. 20. Piek, J., Kenemans, P. and Verheijen, R. (2004) Intraperitoneal Se-rous Adenocarcinoma: A Critical Appraisal of Three Hypotheses on Its Cause. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gy-necology, 191, 718-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.02.067

  21. 21. Lonky, N., Mohan, Y., Chiu, V., et al. (2017) Hysterectomy for Benign Conditions: Complications Relative to Surgical Approach and Other Variables That Lead to Post-Operative Re-admission within 90 Days of Surgery. Women’s Health (London, England), 13, 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745505717714657

  22. 22. Yeh, C., Su, F., Tzeng, C., et al. (2018) Women with Adenomyo-sis Are at Higher Risks of Endometrial and Thyroid Cancers: A Population-Based Historical Cohort Study. PLoS ONE, 13, e0194011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194011

  23. 23. Kok, V., Tsai, H., Su, C., et al. (2015) The Risks for Ovarian, Endometrial, Breast, Colorectal, and Other Cancers in Women with Newly Diagnosed Endometriosis or Adenomyosis: A Population-Based Study. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer: Official Journal of the International Gyneco-logical Cancer Society, 25, 968-976. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000454

  24. 24. Bretschneider, C.E., Doll, K.M., Bensen, J.T., et al. (2016) Prevalence of Pelvic Floor Disorders in Women with Suspected Gynecological Malignancy: A Survey-Based Study. In-ternational Urogynecology Journal, 27, 1409-1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2962-3

  25. 25. Tsilidis, K., Allen, N., Key, T., et al. (2011) Menopausal Hor-mone Therapy and Risk of Ovarian Cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Cancer Causes & Control: CCC, 22, 1075-1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-011-9782-z

  26. 26. Peres, L., Alberg, A., Bandera, E., et al. (2017) Premenopausal Hysterectomy and Risk of Ovarian Cancer in African-American Women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx055

  27. 27. Rice, M., Hankinson, S. and Tworoger, S. (2014) Tubal Ligation, Hyster-ectomy, Unilateral Oophorectomy, and Risk of Ovarian Cancer in the Nurses’ Health Studies. Fertility and Sterility, 102, 192-198.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.041

  28. 28. Li, S., O’neill, S., Zhang, Y., et al. (2017) Estrogen Receptor α Is Required for Oviductal Transport of Embryos. FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American So-cieties for Experimental Biology, 31, 1595-1607. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201601128R

  29. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单