Background: Cervical cancer affects 3,197 women in the UK, and 604000 women worldwide annually, with peak incidence seen between 30-34 years of age. For many, fertility-sparing surgery is an appealing option where possible. However, absence of large-scale data, along with a notable variation in reported outcomes in relevant studies may undermine future efforts for consistent evidence synthesis. Objectives: To systematically review the reported outcomes measured in studies that include women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer and identify whether variation exists. Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to February 2019. Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, cohort and observational studies, and case studies of more than 10 participants from January 1990 to date. Data Collection and Analysis: Study characteristics and all reported treatment outcomes. Main results: 104 studies with a sum of 9535 participants were identified. Most studies reported on oncological outcomes (97/104), followed by fertility and pregnancy (86/104), post-operative complications (74/104), intra-operative complications (72/104), and quality of life (5). There were huge variation and heterogeneity in reported outcomes, with only 12% being good quality and 87% being of poor quality. Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. An agreed Core Outcome Set (COS) is necessary for future studies to effectively harmonise reported outcomes that are measurable and relevant to patients, clinicians, and researchers. This systematic review sets the groundwork for the development of a COS for fertility sparing surgery in cervical cancer. Funding: British Medical Association’s Strutt and Harper Grant.

Objective: To investigate the association between hysterectomy with conservation of one or both adnexa and ovarian and tubal cancer. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 13 NHS Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Population: 202,506 postmenopausal women recruited between 2001-2005 to the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) and followed up until 31 December 2014. Methods: Multiple sources (questionnaires, hospital notes, Hospital Episodes Statistics, national cancer/death registries, ultrasound reports) were used to obtain accurate data on hysterectomy (with conservation of one or both adnexa) and outcomes censored at bilateral oophorectomy, death, ovarian/tubal cancer diagnosis, loss to follow-up or 31 December 2014. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association. Main outcome measures: Invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancer (WHO 2014) on independent outcome review. Results: Hysterectomy with conservation of one or both adnexa was reported in 41,912 (20.7%; 41,912/202,506) women. Median follow up was 11.1years (IQR 9.96-12.04), totalling >2.17million women-years. Among women who had undergone hysterectomy, 0.55% (231/41912) were diagnosed with ovarian/tubal cancer, compared with 0.59% (945/160594) of those with intact uterus. Multivariable analysis showed no evidence of an association between hysterectomy and invasive epithelial ovarian/tubal cancer (RR=0.98, 95%CI 0.85-1.13, p=0.765). Conclusions: This large cohort study provides further independent validation that hysterectomy is not associated with alteration of invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancer risk. This data is important both for clinical counselling and for refining risk prediction models.