Menopausal hormone therapy after breast cancer: a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of the evidence

Female reproductive health in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors

An estimated 500,000 cancer survivors of reproductive age in the United States will live to experience the long-term consequences of cancer treatment. Therefore, a focused aspect of cancer care has appropriately shifted to include quality of life in survivorship. Infertility is a late effect of therapy that affects 12% of female survivors of childhood cancer receiving any cancer treatment in large cohort studies and results in a 40% decreased likelihood of pregnancy in young adults of ages 18-39 years. Nonfertility gynecologic late effects such as hypoestrogenism, radiation-induced uterine and vaginal injury, genital graft-versus-host disease after hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and sexual dysfunction also significantly affect quality of life in survivorship but are underdiagnosed and require consideration. Several articles in the special edition "Reproductive Health in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship" address infertility, genital graft-versus-host disease, and psychosexual functioning in survivorship. This review article focuses on other adverse gynecologic outcomes of cancer therapies including hypogonadism and hormone replacement therapy, radiation-induced uterovaginal injury, vaccination and contraception, breast and cervical cancer screening, and pregnancy considerations in survivorship.

An empirical comparison of the harmful effects for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of interventions (e.g., drugs and vaccines), yet the sample size of RCTs is often limited for safety assessment. Non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) had been proposed as an important alternative source for safety assessment. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether there is any difference between RCTs and NRSIs in the evaluation of adverse events. Methods: We used the dataset of systematic reviews with at least one meta-analysis including both RCTs and NRSIs and collected the 2 × 2 table information (i.e., numbers of cases and sample sizes in intervention and control groups) of each study in the meta-analysis. We matched RCTs and NRSIs by their sample sizes (ratio: 0.85/1 to 1/0.85) within a meta-analysis. We estimated the ratio of the odds ratios (RORs) of an NRSI against an RCT in each pair and used the inverse variance as the weight to combine the natural logarithm of ROR (lnROR). Results: We included systematic reviews with 178 meta analyses, from which we confirmed 119 pairs of RCTs and NRSIs. The pooled ROR of NRSIs compared to that of RCTs was estimated to be 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.87 and 1.07). Similar results were obtained with different sample size subgroups and treatment subgroups. With the increase in sample size, the difference in ROR between RCTs and NRSIs decreased, although not significantly. Discussion: There was no substantial difference in the effects between RCTs and NRSIs in safety assessment when they have similar sample sizes. Evidence from NRSIs might be considered a supplement to RCTs for safety assessment.

Hormone Replacement Therapy After Breast Cancer: It Is Time

ABSTRACT

This article reviews the decades of evidence supporting the reproducible benefits of HRT for menopausal symptom control, improved cardiac health, prevention of hip fracture, reduction in the risk and pace of cognitive decline, and enhanced longevity. It quantifies the increased risk of thromboembolism associated with oral, though not transdermal, HRT. It evaluates the repeated claims that HRT is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer development, and, when administered to breast cancer survivors, an increased risk of breast cancer recurrence. Twenty-five studies of HRT after a breast cancer diagnosis, published between 1980 and 2013, are discussed, as are the 20 reviews of those studies published between 1994 and 2021. Only 1 of the 25 studies, the HABITS trial, demonstrated an increased risk of recurrence, which was limited to local or contralateral, and not distant, recurrence. None of the studies, including HABITS, reported increased breast cancer mortality associated with HRT. Even in the HABITS trial, the absolute increase in the number of women who had a recurrence (localized only) associated with HRT administration was 22. It is on the basis of these 22 patients that HRT, with its demonstrated benefits for so many aspects of women's health, is being denied to millions of breast cancer survivors around the world.

Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making

INTRODUCTION

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates.

RESULTS

Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, 'high-bar evidence' when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, 'medium,' and 'low' when NRS is the main source of inference).

CONCLUSION

Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

Meet the expert: Topical management of vulvar dermatoses

Vulvar dermatoses are often debilitating chronic skin conditions associated with pain and pruritus. In oncologic patients, cancer treatments can precipitate and exacerbate vulvar dermatoses. Cytotoxic chemotherapy, hormonal therapies, and local pelvic radiation therapy can lead to vulvar symptoms, and cancer treatment-induced vulvar conditions include graft-versus-host-disease and radiation dermatitis. There have also been reports of lichen sclerosus development or exacerbation secondary to hormonal therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors, attributed to proposed hormonal and immunologic pathogenesis of lichen sclerosus. Early recognition and treatment of these conditions can significantly improve quality of life. In this review, we summarize the clinical features and management characteristics of six types of common vulvar dermatoses that may present in the oncologic patient.

Menopausal hormone therapy and women's health: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

There remains uncertainty about the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on women's health. A systematic, comprehensive assessment of the effects on multiple outcomes is lacking. We conducted an umbrella review to comprehensively summarize evidence on the benefits and harms of MHT across diverse health outcomes.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases from inception to November 26, 2017, updated on December 17, 2020, to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating effects of MHT, including estrogen-alone therapy (ET) and estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT), in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women in all countries and settings. All health outcomes in previous systematic reviews were included, including menopausal symptoms, surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, various morbidity outcomes, and mortality. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the updated 16-item AMSTAR 2 instrument. Random-effects robust variance estimation was used to combine effect estimates, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated whenever possible. We used the term MHT to encompass ET and EPT, and results are presented for MHT for each outcome, unless otherwise indicated. Sixty systematic reviews were included, involving 102 meta-analyses of RCTs and 38 of observational studies, with 102 unique outcomes. The overall quality of included systematic reviews was moderate to poor. In meta-analyses of RCTs, MHT was beneficial for vasomotor symptoms (frequency: 9 trials, 1,104 women, risk ratio [RR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, p < 0.001; severity: 7 trials, 503 women, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p = 0.002) and all fracture (30 trials, 43,188 women, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, p = 0.002, 95% PI 0.58 to 0.87), as well as vaginal atrophy (intravaginal ET), sexual function, vertebral and nonvertebral fracture, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular mortality (ET), and colorectal cancer (EPT), but harmful for stroke (17 trials, 37,272 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29, p = 0.027) and venous thromboembolism (23 trials, 42,292 women, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.58, p = 0.052, 95% PI 1.03 to 2.99), as well as cardiovascular disease incidence and recurrence, cerebrovascular disease, nonfatal stroke, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease requiring surgery, and lung cancer mortality (EPT). In meta-analyses of observational studies, MHT was associated with decreased risks of cataract, glioma, and esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, but increased risks of pulmonary embolism, cholelithiasis, asthma, meningioma, and thyroid, breast, and ovarian cancer. ET and EPT had opposite effects for endometrial cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, and Alzheimer disease. The major limitations include the inability to address the varying effects of MHT by type, dose, formulation, duration of use, route of administration, and age of initiation and to take into account the quality of individual studies included in the systematic reviews. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42017083412).

CONCLUSIONS

MHT has a complex balance of benefits and harms on multiple health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. The quality of available evidence is only moderate to poor.

The management of menopausal symptoms in women following treatment for cancer at a specialist menopause service

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify prescribing patterns at a specialist menopause service in a central London teaching hospital for women following treatment for a malignancy.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study with data collected over a seven-month period from December 2019 to June 2020. All women reviewed at the specialist menopause services following treatment of a malignancy, BRCA carriers and Lynch syndrome were included in the study, with management options divided into three categories: hormonal, non-hormonal and no treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of this study was to identify prescribing patterns for all women reviewed following a diagnosis of a malignancy, as well as those with genetic mutations necessitating risk-reducing prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (BSO).

RESULTS

Altogether 71 women were included in this study, with the majority of women post management of a non-gynaecological malignancy (51/71, 72%), of which breast cancer was the most common (37/71, 52%). While non-hormonal treatment was the most popular among those treated for breast cancer, for all other malignancies, hormonal treatment was more widespread. Fourteen women also had genetic mutations, with all of these women commencing hormonal treatment post risk reducing surgery.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of those with a history of hormone-sensitive breast cancer, the use of hormonal treatment for menopausal symptoms remained widespread. While this was a relatively small study, the need for long-term follow-up across specialist menopause services, to assess the risk of recurrence is vital.

Hormone replacement therapy after breast cancer: Yes, No or maybe?

Over nine million breast cancer survivors worldwide suffer compromised quality of life attributable to estrogen depletion related symptoms of menopause and side effects of cancer therapy. Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) is very effective in managing these symptoms in general population and in breast cancer survivors. However, the concern of breast cancer recurrence as a result of HRT use keeps many oncologists from using this approach in symptom management. Evidence from randomized trials, observational studies and met-analyses on the impact of HRT use on breast cancer recurrence and survival remains controversial. Climacteric symptoms in breast cancer survivors should be delineated for type and severity for methodical management. Lifestyle modifications are effective for mild symptoms, while non-hormonal pharmaceutical approaches can be used as second-line therapy for control of hot flashes, vulvo-vaginal atrophy, arthralgia, mood swings, sleep disturbance, and depression. Evidence does not conclusively render HRT, as a contraindicated approach for these patients; informed consent and shared-decision-making is a reasonable approach for HRT use in symptomatic breast cancer survivors.

Risks, Benefits, and Treatment Modalities of Menopausal Hormone Therapy: Current Concepts

Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) prescribing practices have evolved over the last few decades guided by the changing understanding of the treatment's risks and benefits. Since the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial results in 2002, including post-intervention analysis and cumulative 18-year follow up, it has become clear that the risks of HT are low for healthy women less than age 60 or within ten years from menopause. For those who are experiencing bothersome vasomotor symptoms, the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks in view of HT's efficacy for symptom management. HT also has a role in preventing osteoporosis in appropriate candidates for treatment. A comprehensive overview of the types, routes, and formulations of currently available HT, as well as HT's benefits and risks by outcomes of interest are provided to facilitate clinical decision making.

Dancing With Health: Quality of Life and Physical Improvements From an EU Collaborative Dance Programme With Women Following Breast Cancer Treatment

Background: Women's health has received renewed attention in the last few years including health rehabilitation options for women affected by breast cancer. Dancing has often been regarded as one attractive option for supporting women's well-being and health, but research with women recovering from breast cancer is still in its infancy. Dancing with Health is multi-site pilot study that aimed to evaluate a dance programme for women in recovery from breast cancer across five European countries.

Methods: A standardized 32 h dance protocol introduced a range of Latin American dances presented within a sports and exercise framework with influences from dance movement therapy. Fifty-four women (M age 53.51; SD 7.99) participated in the study who had a breast cancer diagnosis <3 years, chemotherapy >6 weeks, no indication of metastasis, or scheduled surgery/chemotherapy/radiation treatment for the duration of the intervention. Primary outcome data was collected for anthropometric and fitness measures next to cancer-related quality of life. T-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranked tests were used to establish differences pre and post intervention. Cohen's d was also calculated to determine the effect size of the intervention.

Results: Statistically significant changes were found for: (i) weight, right and left forearm circumference and hip; (ii) 6 min walking, right and left handgrip, sit-to-stand and sit-and-reach; (iii) the EORTC-QLQ C30 summary score as well as the subscales of emotional and social functioning and symptoms. In all cases the direction of change was positive, while Cohen's d calculated showed that the effect of the intervention for these parameters ranged from intermediate to large.

Conclusion: Changes on the above anthropometric, fitness and quality of life measures suggest that the intervention was of value to the participating women recovering from breast cancer. Results also advocate collaborative efforts across countries to further research.

Hormonal management of menopausal symptoms in women with a history of gynecologic malignancy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to review the role of hormone therapy in menopausal patients with breast cancer and gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) using a combination of keywords and database-specific subject headings for the following concepts: menopause, hormone therapy, and cancer. Editorials, letters, case reports, and comments were excluded, as were non-English articles. Additional references were identified by hand-searching bibliographies of included articles. The searches yielded a total of 1,484 citations. All citations were imported into EndNote X9, where they were screened by the authors.

RESULTS

In breast cancer survivors, systemic hormone therapy is not recommended, whereas local low-dose estrogen therapy may be considered after discussion with the patient's oncologist. Among endometrial cancer survivors, hormone therapy is considered safe in low-risk cancers but should be avoided in high-risk subtypes. For survivors of epithelial ovarian cancer and cervical cancer, hormone therapy can be considered, but should be avoided in women with estrogen-sensitive histologic subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks of hormone therapy should be assessed on an individual basis, with consideration of age, type of hormone therapy, dose, duration of use, regimen, route, and prior exposure. Systemic hormone therapy is not recommended in breast cancer survivors, whereas vaginal low-dose estrogen appears safe. Hormone therapy may be used by endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer survivors with low-risk, non-estrogen-receptor-positive subtypes. Video Summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A516.

Estrogen-alone therapy and invasive breast cancer incidence by dose, formulation, and route of delivery: findings from the WHI observational study

OBJECTIVE

Research on the relationships between different hormone therapy doses, formulation and routes of delivery, and subsequent breast cancer incidence has been limited. This study directly compared different estrogen doses, formulations, and route of delivery of estrogen alone among women with a hysterectomy in relation to invasive breast cancer incidence.

METHODS

The Women's Health Initiative Observational Study is a large multicenter prospective cohort study conducted at 40 US sites. Analyses included 26,525 postmenopausal women with a hysterectomy, aged 50 to 79 years, at study entry, recruited between September, 1993 and December, 1998, with annual follow-up through September 12, 2005.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 8.2 years. For conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) users, no difference was observed between low-dose CEE (<0.625 mg) compared with conventional-dose CEE (0.625 mg) for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65, 1.48)]. Compared with conventional-dose CEE, transdermal estrogen was associated with a nonsignificant lower risk of invasive breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47, 1.19). The low prevalence of transdermal use likely limited power for this comparison, and for a comparison of oral estradiol to conventional-dose CEE (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.84, 1.39).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that invasive breast cancer risk did not differ appreciably in women with a hysterectomy using estrogen-alone when directly comparing different doses, formulations, and routes of delivery to the conventional oral CEE. These findings suggest that the lower breast cancer risk found in the WHI estrogen-alone trial may extend to lower doses of CEE. Additional research is needed to confirm these hypotheses.

Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in women with or at high risk for breast cancer: consensus recommendations from The North American Menopause Society and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health

The objective of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH) Expert Consensus Panel was to create a point of care algorithm for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in women with or at high risk for breast cancer. The consensus recommendations will assist healthcare providers in managing GSM with a goal of improving the care and quality of life for these women. The Expert Consensus Panel is comprised of a diverse group of 16 multidisciplinary experts well respected in their fields. The panelists individually conducted an evidence-based review of the literature in their respective areas of expertise. They then met to discuss the latest treatment options for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in survivors of breast cancer and review management strategies for GSM in women with or at high risk for breast cancer, using a modified Delphi method. This iterative process involved presentations summarizing the current literature, debate, and discussion of divergent opinions concerning GSM assessment and management, leading to the development of consensus recommendations for the clinician.Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is more prevalent in survivors of breast cancer, is commonly undiagnosed and untreated, and may have early onset because of cancer treatments or risk-reducing strategies. The paucity of evidence regarding the safety of vaginal hormone therapies in women with or at high risk for breast cancer has resulted in avoidance of treatment, potentially adversely affecting quality of life and intimate relationships. Factors influencing decision-making regarding treatment for GSM include breast cancer recurrence risk, severity of symptoms, response to prior therapies, and personal preference.We review current evidence for various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapeutic modalities in women with a history of or at high risk for breast cancer and highlight the substantial gaps in the evidence for safe and effective therapies and the need for future research. Treatment of GSM is individualized, with nonhormone treatments generally being first line in this population. The use of local hormone therapies may be an option for some women who fail nonpharmacologic and nonhormone treatments after a discussion of risks and benefits and review with a woman's oncologist. We provide consensus recommendations for an approach to the management of GSM in specific patient populations, including women at high risk for breast cancer, women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancers, women with triple-negative breast cancers, and women with metastatic disease.

The role of menopausal hormone therapy in women with or at risk of ovarian and breast cancers: Misconceptions and current directions

For women who are candidates for menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), estrogen can provide relief from symptomatic menopause, decrease rates of chronic illnesses, and improve health-related quality of life. However, confusion surrounds the evidence regarding the impact of exogenous estrogen and progesterone on the breast and ovary. Available data regarding the risks of MHT (estrogen and/or progestin) related to the development of breast and ovarian cancer are often inconsistent or incomplete. Modern molecular and genetic techniques have improved our understanding of the heterogeneity of breast and ovarian cancer. This enhanced understanding of the disease has impacted our understanding of carcinogenesis. Treatment options have evolved to be more targeted toward hormonal therapy for certain subtypes of disease, whereas cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard for other histological and molecular subtypes. The role of MHT in the breast and ovarian cancer survivor, as well as women who are at high risk for the development of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, remains controversial despite evidence that this treatment can improve quality of life and survival outcomes. Through this article, we examine the evidence for and against the use of MHT with a focus on women who have or are at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

Hormone Therapy in Breast Cancer Survivors and Those at High Risk for Breast Cancer

Women and health care providers are often fearful of using hormone therapy to deal with distressing menopausal symptoms in circumstances where there is a perceived or real increased risk of breast cancer. This paper examines the evidence for and against hormone therapy use in 3 common clinical situations: the woman with a positive family history in a first-degree relative, the woman who has undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy due to a known genetic mutation, and the woman in whom treatment of breast cancer has induced premature menopause.

The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society

The 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) updates the 2012 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society and identifies future research needs. An Advisory Panel of clinicians and researchers expert in the field of women's health and menopause was recruited by NAMS to review the 2012 Position Statement, evaluate new literature, assess the evidence, and reach consensus on recommendations, using the level of evidence to identify the strength of recommendations and the quality of the evidence. The Panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.Hormone therapy (HT) remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. The risks of HT differ depending on type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used. Treatment should be individualized to identify the most appropriate HT type, dose, formulation, route of administration, and duration of use, using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of the benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT.For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is most favorable for treatment of bothersome VMS and for those at elevated risk for bone loss or fracture. For women who initiate HT more than 10 or 20 years from menopause onset or are aged 60 years or older, the benefit-risk ratio appears less favorable because of the greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. Longer durations of therapy should be for documented indications such as persistent VMS or bone loss, with shared decision making and periodic reevaluation. For bothersome GSM symptoms not relieved with over-the-counter therapies and without indications for use of systemic HT, low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy or other therapies are recommended.This NAMS position statement has been endorsed by Academy of Women's Health, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American Medical Women's Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asociación Mexicana para el Estudio del Climaterio, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Australasian Menopause Society, Chinese Menopause Society, Colegio Mexicano de Especialistas en Ginecologia y Obstetricia, Czech Menopause and Andropause Society, Dominican Menopause Society, European Menopause and Andropause Society, German Menopause Society, Groupe d'études de la ménopause et du vieillissement Hormonal, HealthyWomen, Indian Menopause Society, International Menopause Society, International Osteoporosis Foundation, International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, Israeli Menopause Society, Japan Society of Menopause and Women's Health, Korean Society of Menopause, Menopause Research Society of Singapore, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, SOBRAC and FEBRASGO, SIGMA Canadian Menopause Society, Società Italiana della Menopausa, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, South African Menopause Society, Taiwanese Menopause Society, and the Thai Menopause Society. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the value of this clinical document as an educational tool, June 2017. The British Menopause Society supports this Position Statement.

Managing Menopausal Symptoms and Associated Clinical Issues in Breast Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVE

Review evidence to guide management of menopausal signs and symptoms in women after breast cancer and make recommendations accordingly.

EVIDENCE

Randomized controlled clinical trials, observational studies, evidence-based guidelines, and expert opinion from professional societies.

BACKGROUND

Symptoms and clinical problems associated with estrogen depletion-sleep disorders, vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), vasomotor symptoms (VMS), mood changes, depressive symptoms, cardiovascular disease, osteopenia, and osteoporosis-confront the estimated 9.3 million breast cancer survivors globally.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Following breast cancer, women should not generally be treated with menopausal hormone therapy or tibolone but should optimize lifestyle. Women with moderate to severe symptoms may benefit from mind-brain behavior or nonhormone, pharmacologic therapy. The selective serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and gabapentenoid agents improve VMS and quality of life. For osteoporosis, nonhormonal agents are available. Treatment of VVA remains an area of unmet need. Low-dose vaginal estrogen is absorbed in small amounts with blood levels remaining within the normal postmenopausal range but could potentially stimulate occult breast cancer cells, and although poorly studied, is not generally advised, particularly for those on aromatase inhibitors. Intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone and oral ospemiphene have been approved to treat dyspareunia, but safety after breast cancer has not been established. Vaginal laser therapy is being used for VVA but efficacy from sham-controlled studies is lacking. Therapies undergoing development include lasofoxifene, neurokinin B inhibitors, stellate ganglion blockade, vaginal testosterone, and estetrol.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonhormone options and therapies are available for treatment of estrogen depletion symptoms and clinical problems after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Individualization of treatment is essential.

[Notice of expert for modality and prescriptions limits of local estrogenotherapy for urinairy inconfinence in women]

OBJECTIVE

To develop a consensus of experts on the use of local estrogens in female urinary incontinence.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Following a formalized consensus method (DELPHI), a questionnaire was produced and sent to a first round and then to a second round of experts. The questionnaire consisted of proposals for recommendations for the use of local estrogens in the context of female urinary incontinence. The Survey Monkey^® survey software allowed the questionnaire to be distributed and the answers obtained to be analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight experts responded to the first round questionnaire. Seven formulations were deleted, 3 amended and 4 added to the first round questionnaire following expert advice. Twenty-six experts replied to the second round questionnaire, 24 of which were complete. Ten of the 21 proposals were approved at more than 80%, including five with strong agreement regarding the recognized benefit of local estrogens in urinary incontinence due to overactive bladder, the absence of data from the literature to demonstrate over-risk of hormone-dependent cancer under local estrogens and the need for follow-up of patients under this treatment. Six proposals were not the subject of a consensus and concerned the prescription modalities (maximum duration, effective minimum dose, prescription before surgery for incontinence).

CONCLUSION

Although local estrogens did not have regulatory approval in urinary incontinence, more than 80% of these experts recognized their benefit in the management of urinary incontinence in women with vulvo-vaginal atrophy, particularly in the case of urinary urge incontinence.

LEVEL OF PROOF

4.

Use of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Safe and ethical?

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women and presently, the breast cancer survivors are an important group of women that faced the several consequences of estrogen deficiency, which is especially common in women after chemotherapy. The most bothersome is the vasomotor symptoms, which are effectively relieved by hormonal therapy (HT). Also, the increased risk of osteoporosis and coronary artery disease is major problem to be resolved in pos of maintaining a good quality of life. Fearing cancer recurrence, most physicians do not offer HT to women with a history of breast cancer. Over this issue reviews the available evidence of the use of HT and tibolone in women treated for breast cancer.

Hormone Replacement Therapy: An Increased Risk of Recurrence and Mortality for Breast Cancer Patients?

Historically, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown an increased risk of recurrence and mortality among women who have used primarily oral HRT after breast cancer. However, many of these studies have had design flaws that may impact the findings. Numerous investigators have concluded that additional RCTs should be performed, but because of ethical issues and logistic challenges, large-scale RCTs are unlikely. Thus, the authors conducted an integrative review investigating recurrence and mortality data among breast cancer survivors who have used hormone replacement therapy (HRT). They recommend a stepwise algorithm for treating vaginal symptoms in breast cancer survivors: (1) start with nonhormonal treatments; (2) progress to a detailed discussion among patients and health-care professionals about the current known risks and benefits of vaginal estrogen; and (3) conclude with mutual decision-making between health-care providers and patients regarding the use of vaginal estrogen treatment.

Comparing alternative design options for chronic disease prevention interventions

BACKGROUND

While the randomized clinical trial is considered to provide the highest level of evidence in clinical medicine, its superiority to other study designs in the context of prevention studies is debated. The purpose of this review was (i) to gather evidence about challenges facing both randomized controlled trials and observational designs for the conduct of population-based chronic disease prevention interventions and (ii) to consider the suitability of recently proposed hybrid designs for population-based prevention intervention studies.

METHODS

Rapid review methods were employed for this study. Articles published within 2007-2012, were included if they: (i) discussed challenges or benefits related to any intervention study design, (ii) compared randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational designs or (iii) introduced a new study design potentially applicable to population-based interventions. After initial screening, papers retained for inclusion were subjected to content analysis and synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 35 included articles were reviewed and used for synthesis. Both RCTs and observational studies are subject to multiple challenges, the main being external and internal validity for RCTs and observational designs, respectively. Four new hybrid designs identified.

CONCLUSION

Although any high quality design can produce high level of evidence, multiple challenges with prevention intervention RCTs or observational studies identified. New hybrid designs that carry benefits of randomized and observational methods may be the road ahead for to assess the effects of population-based interventions.

Treatment of climacteric symptoms in breast cancer patients: a retrospective study from a medication databank

INTRODUCTION

Women affected by breast cancer (BC) will often go through menopause at an earlier age and display more frequent and severe symptoms than women who have a natural menopause. The safety of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and vaginal estrogens for BC survivors has been debated over time and remains unclear. Non hormonal therapies such as antidepressants, gabapentine and clonidine may be useful for those patients but there are few data about their safety.

AIM

This retrospective study analyses the use by BC patients of treatments known to alleviate climacteric symptoms.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Post-menopausal Estrogen Receptors positive (ER+) BC patients, aged 45-69, were identified as having bought, at least once, an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen between the years 2000 and 2012 through a pharmaceutical databank in Belgium. Among them, we defined users of a climacteric treatment those who bought, at least once, HRT, vaginal topical estrogens, antidepressants, clonidine and gabapentine.

RESULTS

We identified 2530 BC patients. Among them, 45% were buying a treatment known to alleviate menopausal symptoms. The majority of these treatments were non-HRT therapies. HRT and vaginal estrogens were seldom bought (respectively 1.1% and 6%), but 3% bought vaginal estrogens while buying AI. About 9.2% of tamoxifen users patients bought antidepressants implicated in tamoxifen metabolism at the same time as tamoxifen.

CONCLUSIONS

Most BC patients follow current guidelines contra-indicating the use of HRT after BC, they use non hormonal therapies. In some cases they use unfortunately antidepressants that may alter the metabolism of tamoxifen.

Management of symptomatic vulvovaginal atrophy: 2013 position statement of The North American Menopause Society

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the previous position statement of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) on the management of symptomatic vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) in postmenopausal women.

METHODS

NAMS searched PubMed for medical literature on VVA published since their 2007 position statement on the role of local vaginal estrogen for treatment of vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women. A panel of acknowledged experts in the field of genitourinary health reviewed the literature to evaluate new evidence on local estrogen as well as on other management options available or in development for symptomatic VVA. The panel's conclusions and recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.

RESULTS

Symptomatic VVA can significantly impair the quality of life (QOL) of postmenopausal women and may be underdiagnosed. In most cases, it can be managed successfully. A number of over-the-counter and government-approved prescription therapies available in the United States and Canada demonstrate effectiveness, depending on the severity of VVA symptoms. These include vaginal lubricants and moisturizers, vaginal estrogen, hormone therapy, and the selective estrogen-receptor modulator ospemifene (indicated for dyspareunia). Long-term studies on the endometrial safety of local estrogen and ospemifene are lacking. Changes in the vaginal microbiome have various effects on symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians can improve the sexual health and QOL of postmenopausal women by educating women about, diagnosing, and appropriately managing symptomatic VVA. Choice of therapy depends on the severity of symptoms, the effectiveness and safety of therapy for the individual patient, and patient preference. Estrogen therapy is the most effective treatment for moderate to severe symptoms, although a direct comparison of estrogen and ospemifene is not available. Nonhormonal therapies available without a prescription provide sufficient relief for most women with mild symptoms. When low-dose estrogen is administered locally, a progestogen is not indicated for women without a uterus and generally is not indicated for women with an intact uterus. However, endometrial safety has not been studied in clinical trials beyond 1 year. There are insufficient data to confirm the safety of local estrogen in women with breast cancer; management of VVA should take the woman's needs and the recommendation of her oncologist into consideration. Research on the vaginal microbiome may lead to other therapies in the future.

Contraception after cancer treatment: describing methods, counseling, and unintended pregnancy risk

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to describe contraceptive methods utilized by young female cancer survivors and determine whether pretreatment fertility counseling decreases unintended pregnancy risk.

METHODS

One thousand and forty-one nongynecologic cancer survivors between 18 and 40 years of age responded to a survey of reproductive health, contraceptive methods utilized and history of fertility counseling before cancer treatment. Subjects who had resumed menstrual bleeding following treatment and had not undergone surgical sterilization were defined at risk of unintended pregnancy if they reported unprotected vaginal intercourse in the prior month but did not desire conception. Statistical methods utilized were Student's t test and χ(2).

RESULTS

Overall, 918 women (88%) received treatment with potential to affect fertility (chemotherapy, radiation or sterilizing surgery). Of 476 women younger than 40 years old who still had menses, 58% did not want to conceive; of these 275 women, 21% reported unprotected intercourse in the prior month and were defined at risk of unintended pregnancy. This compares to the 7.3% risk of unintended pregnancy reported by the National Center for Health Statistics. Increasing age was associated with greater risk of unintended pregnancy (odds ratio 1.07, p=.006). The following contraceptive methods were reported: barrier (25.5%), hormonal (24.5%), tubal ligation (21.3%) vasectomy (17.5%), intrauterine device (7.2%) and other (4.0%). Sixty-seven percent of women received pretreatment fertility counseling. Counseling prior to treatment did not decrease risk of unintended pregnancy (p=.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Sexually active cancer survivors are at threefold increased risk of unintended pregnancy compared to the US population. Contraceptive counseling in this high-risk population is recommended posttreatment.

IMPLICATIONS

Sexually active cancer survivors are at considerable risk of unintended pregnancy. Patient report of pretreatment counseling regarding fertility was not associated with a decline in risk of unintended pregnancy, highlighting the importance of clear recommendations regarding content and timing of counseling.

Comparison of pooled risk estimates for adverse effects from different observational study designs: methodological overview

BACKGROUND

A diverse range of study designs (e.g. case-control or cohort) are used in the evaluation of adverse effects. We aimed to ascertain whether the risk estimates from meta-analyses of case-control studies differ from that of other study designs.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in 10 databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, and handsearching key journals and conference proceedings. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from case-control studies could be directly compared with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from other types of observational studies.

RESULTS

We included 82 meta-analyses. Pooled estimates of harm from the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped in 78/82 instances (95%). Of the 23 cases of discrepant findings (significant harm identified in meta-analysis of one type of study design, but not with the other study design), 16 (70%) stemmed from significantly elevated pooled estimates from case-control studies. There was associated evidence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with higher risk estimates from case-control studies. On average, cohort or cross-sectional studies yielded pooled odds ratios 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-1.00) times lower than that from case-control studies.

INTERPRETATION

Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that meta-analysis of case-control studies tend to give slightly higher estimates of harm as compared to meta-analyses of other observational studies. However it is impossible to rule out potential confounding from differences in drug dose, duration and populations when comparing between study designs.

Hormone replacement therapy after breast cancer: 10 year follow up of the Stockholm randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The management of hormonal deficiency symptoms in breast cancer survivors is an unsolved problem. While hormone replacement therapy (HRT) may increase the risk of breast cancer in healthy women, its effects on recurrence is unclear. Observational studies have suggested decreased recurrence rates from HRT. The few clinical trials in this field have all been closed preterm.

METHODS

The Stockholm trial was started in 1997 and designed to minimise the dose of progestogen in the HRT arm. Disease-free women with a history of breast cancer were randomised to HRT (n=188) or no HRT (n=190). The trial was stopped in 2003 when another Swedish study (HABITS, the Hormonal Replacement After Breast Cancer - Is it Safe?) reported increased recurrence. However the Stockholm material showed no excess risk after 4 years of follow-up. A long term follow-up has now been performed.

FINDINGS

After 10.8 years of follow-up, there was no difference in new breast cancer events: 60 in the HRT group versus 48 among controls (hazard ratio (HR)=1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.9-1.9). Among women on HRT, 11 had local recurrence and 12 distant metastases versus 15 and 12 for the controls. There were 14 contra-lateral breast cancers in the HRT group and four in the control group (HR=3.6; 95% CI=1.2-10.9; p=0.013). No differences in mortality or new primary malignancies were found.

INTERPRETATION

The number of new events did not differ significantly between groups, in contrast to previous reports. The increased recurrence in HABITS has been attributed to higher progestogen exposure. As both trials were prematurely closed, data do not allow firm conclusions. Both studies found no increased mortality from breast cancer or other causes from HRT. Current guidelines typically consider HRT contraindicated in breast cancer survivors. Findings suggest that, in some women symptom relief may outweigh the potential risks of HRT.

The 2012 hormone therapy position statement of: The North American Menopause Society

OBJECTIVE

This position statement aimed to update the evidence-based position statement published by The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) in 2010 regarding recommendations for hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal women. This updated position statement further distinguishes the emerging differences in the therapeutic benefit-risk ratio between estrogen therapy (ET) and combined estrogen-progestogen therapy (EPT) at various ages and time intervals since menopause onset.

METHODS

An Advisory Panel of expert clinicians and researchers in the field of women's health was enlisted to review the 2010 NAMS position statement, evaluate new evidence, and reach consensus on recommendations. The Panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees as an official NAMS position statement.

RESULTS

Current evidence supports the use of HT for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women when the balance of potential benefits and risks is favorable for the individual woman. This position statement reviews the effects of ET and EPT on many aspects of women's health and recognizes the greater safety profile associated with ET.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent data support the initiation of HT around the time of menopause to treat menopause-related symptoms and to prevent osteoporosis in women at high risk of fracture. The more favorable benefit-risk ratio for ET allows more flexibility in extending the duration of use compared with EPT, where the earlier appearance of increased breast cancer risk precludes a recommendation for use beyond 3 to 5 years.

Gynecologic care for breast cancer survivors: assisting in the transition to wellness

Currently, there are >2 million survivors of breast cancer in the United States. Two years after cancer treatment, patients may transition to primary care providers and/or gynecologists. Many of these survivors may have difficulties with menopausal symptoms. If they do not know already, some of these women may want or need risk assessment for hereditary- or treatment-induced second cancers. At least 20% will also have significant psychologic, sexual, and/or relationship difficulties that require attention. All of the women will need assistance to learn and follow recommendations for surveillance, detecting recurrence, and promoting wellness. Thus, gynecologists play a critical role in helping these patients in their health care transitions. To assist the gynecologists, we have reviewed the evaluation and management of common sequelae of breast cancer diagnoses and treatments.

Breast cancer and sexuality: multi-modal treatment options

The sexual consequences of breast cancer and its treatments are well known and previously reviewed. Alterations in body image, with or without breast reconstruction, changes in sexual self-esteem and self-efficacy, vulvovaginal atrophy as a result of chemotherapy and/or adjuvant hormone therapy, and loss of libido secondary to dyspareunia and body image issues are common in survivors of breast cancer. Medications that are prescribed for long-term use including those in the class of aromatase inhibitors can have far-reaching implications on quality of life by contributing to vulvar and vaginal atrophic changes. While this is an important issue, there are few widely accepted treatments that have been evaluated for efficacy and safety for these sexual challenges in the breast cancer population. However, progress is being made in finding new and innovative solutions for many of the sexual problems faced by breast cancer survivors and their partners. Many institutions are now compelled to address survivorship concerns and addressing sexuality and intimacy are paramount issues in survivorship care. In this article, we present the evidence for the multimodal approach to the management of sexuality concerns in the breast cancer survivor. Pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and psychosocial interventions will be reviewed.

Current overview of the management of urogenital atrophy in women with breast cancer

Systemic treatments for women with breast cancer frequently induce urogenital symptoms that can negatively impact a women's quality of life. Urogenital atrophy is frequently undiagnosed and untreated, particularly in breast cancer survivors. Symptoms of urogenital atrophy can usually be relieved with vaginal estrogen preparations, but risk of recurrence and safety is undefined in women with a history of breast cancer. Treatment with nonhormonal modalities including vaginal moisturizers or lubricants and lifestyle modification are the first lines of management. Low-dose vaginal 17 β-estradiol (vaginal estradiol tablets 10 μg or vaginal estradiol ring) can be considered for the treatment of symptomatic urogenital atrophy in women with a history of breast cancer after appropriate disclosure to the patient. While effective in treating the urogenital symptoms, the safety of such therapy remains uncertain. The decision to offer vaginal estrogen therapy needs to be individualized and should be made jointly with the oncologist.

Hormone replacement therapy and women with premature menopause--a cancer survivorship issue

The importance of addressing survivorship issues has been emphasised in recent years. As cancer therapies improve there is a growing population of cancer survivors, which includes many women with premature menopause. Women who are premenopausal at the time of their cancer diagnosis may have specific survivorship issues to be addressed, including infertility, early menopause and sexual dysfunction. These factors can continue have a significant impact on the quality of life of these patients at long term follow up. Data for this Review were identified by searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and references from relevant articles using the search terms 'HRT', 'women/female cancer/tumour', 'menopause' and 'survivorship'. Abstracts and reports from meetings were excluded. Only papers published in English between 1980 and 2010 were included. The aims of this review are to: • Address the hormonal factors which impact on cancer survivorship for premenopausal women • Review the debate for the role of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in cancer survivors • Provide information for physicians and patients regarding the management of hormonally driven survivorship issues (for different tumour types), based on current evidence The recommendations for practice are that HRT may be offered for the alleviation of vasomotor symptoms in cancer survivors who undergo premature menopause up to the age of natural menopause (51 years in the UK). HRT (including vaginal oestrogen preparations) is contraindicated in survivors of oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer and low grade endometrial leiomyosarcoma, where non-HRT alternatives should be considered to alleviate symptoms.

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview

BACKGROUND

There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer

There is evidence that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) may both stimulate and inhibit breast cancers, giving rise to a spectrum of activities, which are frequently hard to understand. Here we summarise the evidence for these paradoxical effects and, given the current data, attempt to give an indication where it may or may not be appropriate to prescribe HRT.It is clear that administration of oestrogen-progestin (E-P) and oestrogen alone (E) HRT is sufficient to stimulate the growth of overt breast tumours in women since withdrawal of HRT results in reduction of proliferation of primary tumours and withdrawal responses in metastatic tumours. E-P, E including tibolone are associated with increased local and distant relapse when given after surgery for breast cancer. For women given HRT who do not have breast cancer the only large randomised trial (WHI) of E-P or E versus placebo has produced some expected and also paradoxical results. E-P increases breast cancer risk as previously shown in observational studies. Risk is increased, particularly in women known to be compliant. Conversely, E either has no effect or reduces breast cancer risk consistent with some but not all observational studies. Two observational studies report a decrease or at least no increase in risk when E-P or E are given after oophorectomy in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Early oophorectomy increases death rates from cardiovascular and other conditions and there is evidence that this may be reversed by the use of E post-oophorectomy. HRT may thus reduce the risk of breast cancer and other diseases (e.g., cardiovascular) in young women and increase or decrease them in older women.

Vaginal estrogens for the treatment of dyspareunia

INTRODUCTION

Vaginal atrophy, which is associated with vaginal itching, burning, dryness, irritation, and pain, is estimated to affect up to 40% of postmenopausal women. Estrogens play a key role in maintaining vaginal health; women with low serum estradiol are more likely to experience vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and reduced sexual activity compared with women who have higher estradiol levels.

AIMS

The purpose of this review is to assess the prevalence and impact of dyspareunia, a symptom of vaginal atrophy, on the health of postmenopausal women and to evaluate treatment options using vaginal estrogens (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approved).

METHODS

Relevant published literature was identified by searching Index Medicus using the PubMed online database. The search terms dyspareunia, vaginal estrogen, vaginal hormone therapy, vaginal atrophy, and atrophic vaginitis were the focus of the literature review.

RESULTS

Current treatment guidelines for vaginal atrophy recommend the use of minimally absorbed local vaginal estrogens, along with non-hormonal lubricants or moisturizers, coupled with maintenance of sexual activity. Vaginal estrogen therapy has been shown to provide improvement in the signs and symptoms of vaginal or vulvar atrophy. Vaginal tablets, rings, and creams are indicated for the treatment of vaginal atrophy, and the FDA has recently approved a low-dose regimen of conjugated estrogens cream to treat moderate-to-severe postmenopausal dyspareunia. The use of low-dose vaginal estrogens has been shown to be effective in treating symptoms of vaginal atrophy without causing significant proliferation of the endometrial lining, and no significant differences have been seen among vaginal preparations in terms of endometrial safety.

CONCLUSION

Women should be informed of the potential benefits and risks of the treatment options available, and with the help of their healthcare provider, choose an intervention that is most suitable to their individual needs and circumstances.