Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

13-04-2022 | Uterine Prolapse | Original Article

Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study

Authors: Karen R. Husby, Kim O. Gradel, Niels Klarskov

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 7/2022

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We aimed to investigate whether the Manchester procedure affects the risk and prognosis of endometrial cancer.

Methods

All Danish residents have a personal number permitting linkage of nationwide registers on the individual level enabling epidemiological studies with lifelong follow-up. We performed a nationwide historical cohort study including Danish women born before 2000 undergoing the Manchester procedure (N = 23,935) during 1977–2018. We included women undergoing anterior colporrhaphy as a reference group (N = 51,008) because of comparable inclination to consult a doctor and clinical similarities. Main outcomes were the number of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer, the stage of endometrial cancer at time of diagnosis, and cancer-specific and overall mortality. We followed the cohort until endometrial cancer/death/emigration/hysterectomy/31 December 2018. We performed chi-square test for trend to compare the diagnostic stage and Cox regressions to analyze the risk of endometrial cancer and mortality. The models were adjusted for age, calendar year, income level, and parity.

Results

During follow-up (median 13 years), 271 (1.13%) women were diagnosed with endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure and 520 (1.05%) after anterior colporrhaphy. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for endometrial cancer was 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86–1.16]. No difference in stage of cancer was found (p = 0.18) nor when stratifying for calendar year. The HR for cancer-specific mortality and overall mortality after the Manchester procedure was 0.87 (95% CI 0.65–1.16) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.77–1.12), respectively.

Conclusions

The Manchester procedure does not affect the risk or prognosis of endometrial cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Løwenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2014;26:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2413-y.CrossRef

Altman D, Falconer C, Cnattingius S, Granath F. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:572.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.012.CrossRef

Husby KR, Gradel KO, Klarskov N. Pelvic organ prolapse following hysterectomy on benign indication: a nationwide, nulliparous cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.10.021.

Abbott S, Unger CA, Evans JM, et al. Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: A multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:163.e1-163.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.012

Husby KR, Lose G, Klarskov N. Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:321–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3852-7.CrossRefPubMed

Wu MP, Long CY, Huang KH, et al. Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: An 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:865–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1647-1.CrossRefPubMed

Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3731-2.

Madsen AM, Raker C, Sung VW. Trends in Hysteropexy and Apical Support for Uterovaginal Prolapse in the United States from 2002 to 2012. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:365–71.CrossRef

Tolstrup CK, Lose G, Klarskov N. The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2016:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3100-y.

10.

Husby KR, Tolstrup CK, Lose G, Klarskov N. Manchester–Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:1161–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3575-9.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Husby KR, Larsen MD, Lose G, Klarskov N. Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:1887–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03950-9.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Bergman I, Söderberg MW, Kjaeldgaard A, Ek M. Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:257–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3119-0.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Tolstrup CK, Husby KR, Lose G, et al. The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:431–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3519-9.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Cardozo L, Staskin D, Schuessler B, et al. Preservation of the prolapsed uterus, chapter 75. In: Textbook of Female Urology and Urogynecology, second edition, Section 8, Surgery for urogenital prolapse. 2006, pp 1079–1080.

15.

Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Adelborg K, et al. The Danish health care system and epidemiological research: From health care contacts to database records. Clin Epidemiol. 2019;11:563–591. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S179083

16.

Frank L. When an entire country is a cohort. Science. 2000;287(80):2398–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5462.2398.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Toft H, Sørensen HT. The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29:541–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Sandegaard JL, Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, et al. The Danish National patient registry: A review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol. 2015;7:449–490. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S91125

19.

Tølbøll Blenstrup L, Knudsen LB. Danish registers on aspects of reproduction. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:79–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494811399957.CrossRef

20.

Denmark S. Documentation of statistics for Income Statistics 2019. 2019. https://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/SingleFiles/GetArchiveFile.aspx?fi=4505385687&fo=0&ext=kvaldel.

21.

Gjerstorff ML. The Danish Cancer Registry. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:42–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494810393562.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sorosky JI. Endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:383–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182605bf1.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Helweg-Larsen K. The Danish register of causes of death. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:26–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494811399958.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4:1623–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.CrossRef

25.

Danaei G, Rodríguez LAG, Cantero OF, et al. Observational data for comparative effectiveness research: an emulation of randomised trials to estimate the effect of statins on primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22:70–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280211403603.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kjærgaard J, Clemmensen IH, Thomsen BL, Storm HH. Validity of diagnoses of and operations for nonmalignant gynecological conditions in the Danish National Hospital Registry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:137–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00454-1.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Dalton SO, Olsen MH, Johansen C, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in cancer survival–changes over time. A population-based study, Denmark, 1987–2013. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2019;58:737–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2019.1566772.CrossRef

28.

Hansen UD, Gradel KO, Larsen MD. Danish urogynaecological database. Clin Epidemiol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S99511.

29.

Tripton RH, Atkin PF. Uterine disease after the Manchester repair operation. J Obstet Gynecol Br Commonw. 1970;77:852–3.CrossRef

30.

Luukkainen T, Toivonen J. Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD as a method of contraception with therapeutic properties. Contraception. 1995;52:269–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(95)00210-2.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Engelbredt K, Glavind K, Kjaergaard N. Development of cervical and uterine malignancies during follow-up after manchester-fothergill procedure. J Gynecol Surg. 2020;36:60–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.2019.0029.CrossRef

32.

Kurian R, Kirchhoff-Rowald A, Sahil S, et al. The Risk of Primary Uterine and Cervical Cancer After Hysteropexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021:27. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001030.

Title: Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study
Authors: Karen R. Husby
Kim O. Gradel
Niels Klarskov
Publication date: 13-04-2022
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Uterine Prolapse
Kolporraphie Front
Hysterectomy
Endometrial Cancer
Endometrial Cancer
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05196-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2022

When prolapse cannot be reduced: incarcerated procidentia due to pelvic mass

Correction to: Stress urinary incontinence and the forgotten female hormones

Preoperative anemia and complications after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: an analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database

Intermediate term outcomes after transvaginal uterine-preserving surgery in women with uterovaginal prolapse

Long-term outcome after routine surgery for pelvic organ prolapse—A national register-based cohort study

Regarding the readability of online resources for third-line treatment of overactive bladder in the US population based on Werner et al’s study