Lesbian and bisexual women's gynaecological conditions: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

Guideline No. 449: Diagnosis and Impact of Endometriosis - A Canadian Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To provide a contemporary approach to the understanding of the impact and methods for the diagnosis of endometriosis in Canada.

TARGET POPULATION

Individuals, families, communities, health care providers, and health care administrators who are affected by, care for patients with, or manage delivery of services for endometriosis.

OPTIONS

The diagnosis of endometriosis is facilitated by a detailed history, examination, and imaging tests with providers who are experienced in endometriosis care. Surgical evaluation with pathology confirms a diagnosis of endometriosis; however, it is not required for those whose diagnosis was confirmed with imaging.

OUTCOMES

There is a need to address earlier recognition of endometriosis to facilitate timely access to care and support. Education directed at the public, affected individuals and families, health care providers, and health care administrators are essential to reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Increased awareness and education about the impact and approach to diagnosis may support timely access to care for patients and families affected by endometriosis. Earlier and appropriate care may support a reduced health care system burden; however, improved clinical evaluation may require initial investments.

EVIDENCE

Each section was reviewed with a unique search strategy representative of the evidence available in the literature related to the area of focus. The literature searches for each section of this guideline are listed in Appendix A and include information from published systematic reviews described in the text.

VALIDATION METHODS

The recommendations were developed following two rounds of review by a national expert panel through an iterative 2-year consensus process. Further details on the process are shared in Appendix B. The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See Appendix C (Table C1 for definitions and Table C2 for interpretations of strong and conditional recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

This guideline is intended to support health care providers and policymakers involved in the care of those impacted by endometriosis and the systems required to support them.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Endometriosis impact and diagnosis updated guidelines for Canadian health care providers and policymakers.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Queering Cisgender LGB+ Women's Sexual Health Scripts

The invisibility of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB+) women in sexual health research is of particular concern when it comes to understanding and supporting their sexual health practices. We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of sexual health decision-making interviews among 22 LGB+ cisgender women who ranged in age from 20 to 26 (M = 23.1 years, SD = 1.8 years). Participants were mostly bisexual (n = 9), White (n = 13), and all reported at least some college education. Results showed that LGB+ women both reify and push against heteronormativity in their sexual partnerships. By queering definitions of "sex" beyond heterosexual intercourse, leaning into trust as a foundation of new sexual partnerships, and promoting accessible and realistic hygienic strategies for STI prevention, LGB+ women queer, or reimagine, new sexual scripts. These results highlight the need for relationship and sexual health scholars to direct focus toward the promotion of holistic sexual and relationship education and research which reflects LGB+ women's various sexual desires, goals and needs. Understanding LGB+ women's sexual scripts and health outcomes will ensure that this population continues to be validated and supported by clinicians, researchers, and educators.

LGBTQ-competent obesity prevention and management

ABSTRACT

Obesity is a complex and largely preventable disease that is an enormous burden to patient health and to the healthcare system. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) patients and their healthcare providers should be aware of their personal risks and causes of weight gain and obesity. Sensitive, comprehensive, and competent LGBTQ preventive care and treatment are needed to address the needs of this population, improve patient outcomes, and reduce healthcare inequalities. Research is needed to further evaluate the confluence of obesity and metabolic risk factors in LGBTQ patients, and to develop prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk for obesity-related comorbidities, chronic disease, and death.

Does the impact of bereavement vary between same and different gender partnerships? A representative national, cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Data suggest poorer bereavement outcomes for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but this has not been estimated in population-based research. This study compared bereavement outcomes for partners of same-gender and different-gender decedents.

METHODS

In this population-based, cross-sectional survey of people bereaved of a civil partner or spouse 6-10 months previously, we used adjusted logistic and linear regression to investigate outcomes of interest: (1) positive screen on Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG), (2) positive screen on General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), (3) grief intensity (ICG) and (4) psychiatric symptoms (GHQ-12).

RESULTS

Among 233 same-gender partners and 329 of different-gender partners, 66.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.0-72.2] and 59.2% [95% CI (53.9-64.6)] respectively screened positive for complicated grief on the ICG, whilst 76.0% [95% CI (70.5-81.5)] and 69.3% [95% CI (64.3-74.3)] respectively screened positive on the GHQ-12. Same-gender bereaved partners were not significantly more likely to screen positive for complicated grief than different-gender partners [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.56, 95% CI (0.98-2.47)], p = 0.059, but same-gender bereaved partners were significantly more likely to screen for psychiatric caseness [aOR 1.67 (1.02, 2.71) p = 0.043]. We similarly found no significant association of partner gender with grief intensity [B = 1.86, 95% CI (-0.91to 4.63), p = 0.188], but significantly greater psychological distress for same-gender partners [B = 1.54, 95% CI (-0.69-2.40), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Same-gender bereaved partners report significantly more psychological distress. In view of their poorer sub-clinical mental health, clinical and bereavement services should refine screening processes to identify those at risk of poor mental health outcomes.

Communication about sexual orientation and gender between clinicians, LGBT+ people facing serious illness and their significant others: a qualitative interview study of experiences, preferences and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Healthcare organisations have legal and ethical duties to reduce inequalities in access to healthcare services and related outcomes. However, lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people continue to experience and anticipate discrimination in health and social care. Skilled communication is vital for quality person-centred care, but there is inconsistent provision of evidence-based clinician education on health needs and experiences of LGBT+ people to support this. This study aimed to identify key stakeholders' experiences, preferences and best practices for communication regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender history in order to reduce inequalities in healthcare.

METHODS

Semistructured qualitative interviews with LGBT+ patients with serious illness, significant others and clinicians, recruited via UK-wide LGBT+ groups, two hospitals and one hospice in England. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

74 stakeholders participated: 34 LGBT+ patients with serious illness, 13 significant others and 27 multiprofessional clinicians. Participants described key communication strategies to promote inclusive practice across three domains: (1) 'Creating positive first impressions and building rapport' were central to relationship building and enacted through routine use of inclusive language, avoiding potentially negative non-verbal signals and echoing terminology used by patients and caregivers; (2) 'Enhancing care by actively exploring and explaining the relevance of sexual orientation and gender identity', participants described the benefits of clinicians initiating these discussions, pursuing topics guided by the patient's response or expressed preferences for disclosure. Active involvement of significant others was encouraged to demonstrate recognition of the relationship; these individual level actions are underpinned by a foundation of (3) 'visible and consistent LGBT+ inclusiveness in care systems'. Although participants expressed hesitance talking about LGBT+ identities with individuals from some sociocultural and religious backgrounds, there was widespread support for institutions to adopt a standardised, LGBT+ inclusive, visibly supportive approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Person-centred care can be enhanced by incorporating discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity into routine clinical practice. Inclusive language and sensitive exploration of relationships and identities are core activities. Institutions need to support clinicians through provision of adequate training, resources, inclusive monitoring systems, policies and structures. Ten inclusive communication recommendations are made based on the data.

Consultation de gynécologie à destination des personnes lesbiennes ou trans : retour d’expérience

INTRODUCTION

Access to gynaecological care for lesbians and trans people is a public health issue. A free consultation has been experimented for this population in a community approach.

METHODS

Feedback from the midwife responsible for this consultation through analysis of data from medical records and administrative reports.

RESULTS

100 consultations were conducted over the 30 months of the experiment. These consultations were for the benefit of lesbian cisgenre women in 76 cases and trans men in 17 cases. These consultations offered a time for attentive listening, anamnesis, clinical examination, screening tests, preventive treatment and orientation. Their duration varied from 50 minutes to 1.5 hours. The reasons for consulting are often multiple and thirty-eight percent of the people received said they had been victims of violence.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting the consultation process could facilitate access to gynaecological care for lesbians and trans men. An institutional period of training, reflection and networking with the professionals and communities concerned seems essential to the success of this type of care.

Live birth, cumulative live birth and perinatal outcome following assisted reproductive treatments using donor sperm in single women vs. women in lesbian couples: a prospective controlled cohort study

Purpose

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments with donor sperm have been allowed for women in lesbian relationships (WLR) since 2005 in Sweden, but for single women (SW), these became approved only recently in 2016. This study was conducted to compare the outcomes of ART treatments in SW vs. WLR.

Methods

This is a prospective controlled cohort study of 251 women undergoing intrauterine insemination (D-IUI) or in vitro fertilization (D-IVF) using donor sperm between 2017 and 2019 at the department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital. The cohort comprised 139 SW and 112 WLR. The main outcomes included differences in live birth rate (LBR) and cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) between the groups. The SW underwent 66 D-IUI and 193 D-IVF treatments and WLR underwent 255 D-IUI and 69 D-IVF treatments. Data on clinical characteristics, treatment protocols and clinical outcomes were extracted from the clinic’s electronic database. The outcomes of D-IUI and D-IVF were separately assessed.

Results

The cohort of SW was significantly older than WLR (37.6 vs. 32.4 years, P < 0.001), and more commonly underwent IVF at first treatment (83% vs. 29%, P < 0.000). Conversely, WLR underwent more frequently D-IUI as a first treatment (71% vs. 17% of SW, P < 0.001) and more often in the natural cycle (89.9% vs. 70.8%, P = 0.019), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the main outcome LBR between the two groups, or between the two different types of treatment, when adjusted for age. Perinatal outcomes and cLBR were also similar among the groups.

Conclusions

SW were, on average, older than WLR undergoing treatment with donor sperm. No significant differences were seen in the LBR and cLBR when adjusted for age between the two groups and between the two types of treatment (D-IVF vs. D-IUI).

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NTC04602962.

Cervical screening attendance and cervical cancer risk among women who have sex with women

OBJECTIVES

To describe cervical cancer screening participation among women who have sex exclusively with women (WSEW) and women who have sex with women and men (WSWM) compared with women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), and women who have never had sex and compare this with bowel (colorectal) and breast screening participation. To explore whether there is evidence of differential stage 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or cervical cancer risk.

METHODS

We describe cervical, bowel and breast cancer screening uptake in age groups eligible for the national screening programmes, prevalent CIN3 and cervical cancer at baseline, and incident CIN3 and cervical cancer at five years follow-up, among 218,674 women in UK Biobank, a cohort of healthy volunteers from the UK.

RESULTS

Compared with WSEM, in adjusted analysis [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)], WSEW 0.10 (0.08-0.13), WSWM 0.73 (0.58-0.91), and women who have never had sex 0.02 (0.01-0.02) were less likely to report ever having attended cervical screening. There were no differences when considering bowel cancer screening uptake (p = 0.61). For breast cancer screening, attendance was lower among WSWM 0.79 (0.68 to 0.91) and women who have never had sex 0.47 (0.29-0.58), compared with WSEM. There were incident and prevalent cases of both CIN3 and cervical cancer among WSEW and WSWM. Compared with WSEM with a single male partner, among WSEW there was a twofold increase in CIN3 1.91 (1.01 to 3.59); among WSWM with only one male partner, this was 2.25 (1.19 to 4.24).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the importance of improving uptake of cervical screening among all women who have sex with women and breast screening among WSWM and women who have never had sex.

Sexual orientation and gynecologic medical care: A cross-sectional study with Brazilian women

OBJECTIVE

To study a sample of Brazilian lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women concerning their gynecologic history and their experience with gynecologic care.

METHODS

An internet-based survey for women aged 18 years or older was conducted to gather epidemiologic data on sexual habits, primary gynecologic diseases, and patient-gynecologist relationships.

RESULTS

The survey was answered by 1201 women, with 571 reporting being heterosexual, 272 lesbian, and 358 bisexual. The lesbian/bisexual (LB) group contained fewer Caucasian individuals, used more public health resources, and had more individuals consuming tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs. No significant differences were found in the number of individuals with diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension, and sexually transmitted diseases. Depression was more common in the LB group. Endometriosis and vaginismus were more common in bisexual women, whereas polycystic ovary syndrome was more frequent in lesbians. Questions on the patient-gynecologist relationship revealed that most LB women felt uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the treatment received.

CONCLUSION

The LB group had different epidemiologic characteristics from the heterosexual group. Differences in morbid antecedents were found only in endometriosis, vaginismus, and polycystic ovary syndrome. Most LB Brazilian women are dissatisfied with treatment received from gynecologists.

Cross-sectional study of psychosocial well-being among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual gynecologic cancer survivors

Background

Delays in care and increased risk for mental health diagnoses put individuals identifying as a sexual minority with cancer at risk for decreased quality of life.

Aim

To assess psychosocial health among sexual minority gynecologic cancer survivors, we compared self‐reported quality of life and psychosocial measures between individuals diagnosed with gynecologic cancers identifying as lesbian/gay/bisexual (LGB) and heterosexual.

Methods and Results

English‐speaking adults with gynecologic cancers were invited to participate in an ongoing cohort survey study. Quality of life and psychosocial measures included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐General, Distress Thermometer (distress), Patient Health Questionnaire‐8 (depression), General Anxiety Disorder‐7 (anxiety), and Post‐traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM‐5 (post‐traumatic stress disorder; PTSD). Measures were compared by self‐reported sexual orientation (heterosexual vs. LGB) using descriptive statistics (frequencies and means) and linear and logistic regression models, adjusting for college education.

Of 814 patients invited, 457 enrolled (56.1%) and 401 (92.6%) completed the survey and provided information on their sexuality. All but one self‐identified as cisgender women and 22 (5.5%) as LGB. LGB participants were more likely to have completed college (68.2% vs. 40.1%, p = .009) but were otherwise similar across demographic and clinical characteristics. Quality of life and distress scores were similar between groups. LGB participants, compared to heterosexual, reported higher rates of depression (31.8% vs. 10.6%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 4.1 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6–11.0], p = .004), anxiety (25.0% vs. 7.1%, adjusted OR = 5.4 [95% CI: 1.7–16.7], p= .004), and PTSD (13.6% vs. 3.5%, adjusted OR = 4.2 [95% CI: 1.1–16.3], p = .04).

Conclusion

LGB participants reported poorer emotional health following a gynecologic cancer diagnosis than heterosexual participants. Our data suggest this population may need additional resources and support during and after their cancer diagnosis. Future work is needed to identify additional risk factors and the underlying sources of these disparities in order to improve patient care and wellness in this population.

Sexual Health Studies in Gay and Lesbian People: A Critical Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The subject of gay and lesbian sexual health seems to be highly understudied, at least partially due to general limitations inherent in the studies of sexuality as well as heteronormative bias and difficulties in reaching out to these populations.

AIM

To critically review the studies on gay and lesbian sexual health in order to identify the existing gaps and biases in the scope and general construction of the published research.

METHODS

The dataset comprised 556 peer-reviewed articles identified through Medline search. Key studies characteristics were extracted according to the codebook developed for this study and analyzed descriptively.

OUTCOMES

The outcomes included: research methodology, study design, sampling, research topic and diversity inclusion in studied populations.

RESULTS

The majority of the studies were quantitative (70.5%), cross-sectional (83.6%) and used convenience sampling (83.2%). Most papers focused on HIV/STI risk behaviors, vulnerabilities and risk navigation (26.3%). The least often found topic captured the sexual function of gay and lesbian participants in older age (0.5%). Over 68% of papers relied on male samples and studies on female-only samples comprised less than 13%. Most studies did not recruit a specific age group (77.7%) and included information about ethnicity of study participants (62%). Information about education (58.7%) or other indicators of socioeconomic status (52.8%) was less often reported.

CLINICAL TRANSLATION

The methodological limitations of prevailing study designs, sampling procedures and the composition of samples, as well as extensive areas of omission confine the clinical utility of existing research.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This study offers critical insights into the most significant challenges associated with studies on gay and lesbian sexual health. Medline-only database search, the inclusion of English-written papers exclusively and limited scope (gay and lesbian sexuality only) of the review constitute the most significant limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Gay and lesbian sexual health is an understudied field characterized by primary focus on HIV/STI and paucity of higher quality research including diverse subpopulations. Mijas M, Grabski B, Blukacz M, et al. Sexual Health Studies in Gay and Lesbian People: A Critical Review of the Literature. J Sex Med 2021;XXX:XXX-XXX.

Putting reproductive rights into practice. The profile of the demand in a publicly sponsored ART program for single or female partner women in Catalonia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the size and characteristics of the demand for a newly established, publicly sponsored, program of assisted reproduction for single women (SW) and women with a female partner (FP) in a European country.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed the application forms received during the first two years and structured interviews with 300 successive non selected applicants.

RESULTS

The mean sustained size of the demand was of 52.6 applications per month (sd 14) and corresponded to 0.06 % of the target population. Data from 237 applicants was evaluable. 119 (50.2 %) were SW and 118 (49.8 %) were FP. The median age was 36 years, 36.5 years for SW and 34 years for FP (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney). Clinically 18.6 % of women presented irregular cycles, and 17.8 % of women had undergone hysterosalpingography (HSG), with a 14.3% prevalence of tubal dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

A publicly sponsored program for Assisted Reproduction for SWFP should establish clear inclusion criteria, especially as regards to age, ovarian reserve, techniques offered, and the number of cycles to obtain the maximal efficiency. Further research specific for this group is required to ensure that they receive adequate care and ultimately to fulfil their reproductive rights.

Breast cancer and gynecologic risks in lesbian and bisexual women

ABSTRACT

Lesbian and bisexual women may be at an increased risk for gynecologic infections and breast cancer due to a higher prevalence of factors such as obesity, smoking, and lower pregnancy rates. This article discusses the role of healthcare professionals in preventive screening for breast and gynecologic cancers and promoting healthy living in these patients by avoiding smoking, maintaining an ideal body weight, and limiting alcohol consumption.

Lesbian Women Undergoing Assisted Reproduction: Diverse, But Not Different

The use of assisted reproduction among women in relationships with other women has increased in the United States over the past decade as a result of increased legal access and social acceptance. Despite this shift, limited studies currently exist to guide optimal fertility care for this growing patient population of women seeking assisted reproduction. In this Commentary, assisted reproduction will be meant to include ovulation induction, intrauterine insemination (IUI), and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Conflicting studies suggest that self-identified lesbian women may demonstrate an increased prevalence of polycystic ovarian syndrome. Most available studies find that a woman's sexual orientation does not affect the outcome of fertility treatment. Self-identified lesbian women undergoing donor sperm IUI and IVF have similar pregnancy and live-birth rates as heterosexual women. Better evidence regarding patient demographics and comorbidities, underlying etiologies of subfertility, and assisted reproductive outcomes among women building families with other women is needed to optimize care.

Sex Hormone Levels in Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Women: Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis

Lesbian and bisexual women may have different levels of sex hormones compared to heterosexual women. We systematically reviewed comparative studies measuring any sex hormones. A protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO-CRD42017072436) and searches conducted in six databases. Any relevant empirical studies published within the last 50 years reporting any circulating sex hormones in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women were included, with no language or setting restrictions. Inclusions, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of hormone levels, using standardized-mean-differences (SMD) were conducted where five or more studies reported results. From 1236 citations, 24 full papers were examined and 14 studies of mixed designs included, 12 in women without known ovarian problems. Hormones were measured in plasma (n = 9), saliva (n = 4), and urine (n = 2) and included androstenedione, luteinizing hormone, estradiol, pregnanediol, progesterone, testosterone, and several other hormones. Most studies were small, biased, and had considerable heterogeneity. Few found statistically significant differences between groups. All-sample meta-analysis showed increased testosterone in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women (n = 9; SMD = 0.90; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.22, 1.57, I² = 84%). This was the only difference found. We conclude that the small amount of heterogeneous research, from 50 years to date, suggests little discernable difference in sex hormone levels between lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women excepting possibly higher testosterone. A large-scale primary study would be required before placing any certainty in the findings or their implications.

A Systematic Review of Sexual Minority Women's Experiences of Health Care in the UK

Sexual minority women (SMW) experience worse health and disproportionate behavioural risks to health than heterosexual women. This mixed-methods systematic review evaluated recent studies on health experiences of UK SMW, published 2010–2018. Analysis was through narrative thematic description and synthesis. Identified were 23,103 citations, 26 studies included, of which 22 provided qualitative and nine quantitative results. SMW had worse health experiences that might impact negatively on access, service uptake and health outcomes. Findings highlighted significant barriers facing SMW, including heteronormative assumptions, perceptions and experiences of negative responses to coming out, ignorance and prejudice from healthcare professionals, and barriers to raising concerns or complaints. Little information was available about bisexual and trans women’s issues. Findings highlighted the need for explicit and consistent education for healthcare professionals on SMW issues, and stronger application of non-discrimination policies in clinical settings.

Clinical Care of Lesbian and Bisexual Women for the Obstetrician Gynecologist

Sexual minority women are more likely to delay care, less likely to have a usual place of care, and more likely to exhibit higher risk behaviors such as smoking, obesity, heavy drinking resulting in a disproportionate number of chronic conditions. It is imperative for obstetrician-gynecologists to be at the forefront of providing comprehensive health care to all women, no matter their sexual orientation. This article seeks to discuss health care disparities as well as health behaviors and outcomes in this population. In addition, it will review the appropriate recommendations for clinical care of sexual minority women for the obstetrician/gynecologist.

Associations Between Sexual Orientation and Overall and Site-Specific Diagnosis of Cancer: Evidence From Two National Patient Surveys in England

Purpose To address gaps in evidence on the risk of cancer in people from sexual minorities. Patients and Methods We used data from 796,594 population-based English General Practice Patient Survey responders to explore the prevalence of self-reported diagnoses of cancer in the last 5 years among sexual minorities compared with heterosexual women and men. We analyzed data from 249,010 hospital-based English Cancer Patient Experience Survey responders with sexual orientation as a binary outcome, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth, Revision, diagnosis as covariate-38 different common and rarer cancers, with breast and prostate cancer as baseline categories for women and men, respectively-to examine whether people from sexual minorities are over- or under-represented among different cancer sites. For both analyses, we used logistic regression, stratified by sex and adjusted for age. Results A diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 years was more commonly reported by male General Practice Patient Survey responders who endorsed gay or bisexual orientation compared with heterosexual men (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.49; P < .001) without evidence of a difference between lesbian or bisexual compared with heterosexual women (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.37; P = .19). For most common and rarer cancer sites (30 of 33 in women, 28 of 32 in men), the odds of specific cancer site diagnosis among Cancer Patient Experience Survey respondents seemed to be independent of sexual orientation; however, there were notable differences in infection-related (HIV and human papillomavirus [HPV]) cancers. Gay or bisexual men were over-represented among men with Kaposi's sarcoma (OR, 48.2; 95% CI, 22.0 to 105.6), anal (OR, 15.5; 95% CI, 11.0 to 21.9), and penile cancer (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.7). Lesbian or bisexual women were over-represented among women with oropharyngeal cancer (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0). Conclusion Large-scale evidence indicates that the distribution of cancer sites does not vary substantially by sexual orientation, with the exception of some HPV- and HIV-associated cancers. These findings highlight the importance of HPV vaccination in heterosexual and sexual minority populations.

Lesbian and bisexual women's gynaecological conditions: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the gynaecological health of lesbian and bisexual (LB) women.

OBJECTIVES

To examine differences in incidence and/or prevalence of gynaecological conditions in LB compared with heterosexual women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The systematic review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO-CRD42015027091) and searches conducted in seven databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Comparative studies published 2000-2015, reporting any benign (non-infectious) and/or malignant gynaecological conditions with no language or setting restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses of condition prevalence rates were conducted where ≥3 studies reported results.

MAIN RESULTS

From 567 records, 47 full papers were examined and 11 studies of mixed designs included. No studies directly addressing the question were found. Two chronic pelvic pain studies reported higher rates in bisexual compared with heterosexual women (38.5 versus 28.2% and 18.6 versus 6.4%). Meta-analyses showed no statistically significant differences in polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis and fibroids. There was a higher rate of cervical cancer in bisexual than heterosexual women [odds ratio (OR) = 1.94; 95% CI 1.46-2.59] but no difference overall (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.15-3.92). There was a lower rate of uterine cancer in lesbian than heterosexual women (OR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.11-0.73) and overall (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.97), but no difference in bisexual women (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.06-3.07).

CONCLUSIONS

More bisexual women may experience chronic pelvic pain and cervical cancer than heterosexual women. There is no information on potential confounders. Better evidence is required, preferably monitoring sexual orientation in research using the existing validated measure and fully reporting results.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Lesbians have less uterine cancer than heterosexual women; bisexuals have more pelvic pain and cervical cancer.