Ovarian preservation compared to oophorectomy in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Standard treatment for endometrial cancer is a hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymph node assessment. In premenopausal women, removal of the ovaries may not be necessary and could increase the risk of all-cause mortality. We sought to estimate the outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of oophorectomy versus ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer.A decision-analytic model was designed using TreeAge software comparing oophorectomy to ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer. We used a theoretical cohort of 10,600 women to represent our population of interest in the United States in 2021. Outcomes included cancer recurrences, ovarian cancer diagnoses, deaths, rates of vaginal atrophy, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results.Oophorectomy resulted in more deaths and higher rates of vaginal atrophy, while ovarian preservation resulted in 100 cases of ovarian cancer. Ovarian preservation resulted in lower costs and higher QALYs making it cost effective when compared to oophorectomy. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the probability of cancer recurrence after ovarian preservation and probability of developing ovarian cancer were the most impactful variables in our model.Ovarian preservation is cost-effective in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer when compared to oophorectomy. Ovarian preservation may prevent surgical menopause, which may improve quality of life and overall mortality without compromising oncologic outcomes, and should be strongly considered in premenopausal women with early stage disease.