Nonpharmacological therapies for the management of menopausal vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer affects millions of women worldwide, and for many, therapy results in treatment-induced menopause. Menopausal symptoms in breast cancer survivors are often more severe, frequent, and of greater duration compared with natural menopause. Hot flushes and night sweats pose a significant burden for many women, with limited therapeutic options as menopausal hormone therapy is contraindicated. Guidelines recommend non-hormonal pharmacological agents including clonidine, gabapentin, and some antidepressants. However, some women may be reluctant to use medications due to concerns about side effects. The aim of this narrative review was to appraise recent evidence for nonpharmacological treatments for vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer survivors including cognitive behavioural therapy, hypnosis, yoga, mindfulness, acupuncture, and lifestyle changes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were randomised and involved breast cancer survivors and nonpharmacological treatments for menopausal vasomotor symptoms. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the criteria, and three studies of exercise in healthy menopausal women were included. Cognitive behavioural therapy reduces menopausal symptoms and perceived impact of hot flushes and night sweats in breast cancer survivors and is cost effective. The efficacy of hypnosis as a treatment for menopausal vasomotor symptoms in women with breast cancer is supported by two randomised controlled trials. Yoga and acupuncture may reduce vasomotor symptom frequency and/or burden. Studies of exercise as an intervention for vasomotor symptoms in healthy menopausal women have not shown benefit. CONCLUSION: Evidence for nonpharmacological interventions supports cognitive behavioural therapy and hypnosis in the management of vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer survivors.

Exploring the facilitators and barriers to using an online infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for young women with breast cancer: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As cancer treatments may impact on fertility, a high priority for young patients with breast cancer is access to evidence-based, personalised information for them and their healthcare providers to guide treatment and fertility-related decisions prior to cancer treatment. Current tools to predict fertility outcomes after breast cancer treatments are imprecise and do not offer individualised prediction. To address the gap, we are developing a novel personalised infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for premenopausal patients with breast cancer that considers current reproductive status, planned chemotherapy and adjuvant endocrine therapy to determine likely post-treatment infertility. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of implementing this FoRECAsT tool into clinical practice by exploring the barriers and facilitators of its use among patients and healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional exploratory study is being conducted using semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with 15-20 participants each from the following groups: (1) premenopausal patients with breast cancer younger than 40, diagnosed within last 5 years, (2) breast surgeons, (3) breast medical oncologists, (4) breast care nurses (5) fertility specialists and (6) fertility preservation nurses. Patients with breast cancer are being recruited from the joint Breast Service of three affiliated institutions of Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia-Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital, and clinicians are being recruited from across Australia. Interviews are being audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported into qualitative data analysis software to facilitate data management and analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (HREC number: 2017.163). Confidentiality and privacy are maintained at every stage of the study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journals, national and international conference presentations, social media, broadcast media, print media, internet and various community/stakeholder engagement activities.

Preventing ovarian failure associated with chemotherapy.

Alkylating chemotherapy is often used to treat pre-menopausal women for various malignancies and autoimmune diseases. Chemotherapy-associated ovarian failure is a potential consequence of this treatment which can cause infertility, and increases the risk of other long term adverse health sequelae. Randomised trials, predominantly of women undergoing alkylating chemotherapy for breast cancer, have shown evidence for the efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) in preventing chemotherapy-associated ovarian failure. The European St Gallen and United States National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend the use of concurrent GnRHa to reduce the risk of ovarian failure for pre-menopausal women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. The GnRHa goserelin, a monthly 3.6 mg depot subcutaneous injection, has recently been listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to reduce risk of ovarian failure for pre-menopausal women receiving alkylating therapies for malignancy or autoimmune disease. The first dose of goserelin should ideally be administered at least 1 week before commencement of alkylating treatment and continued 4-weekly during chemotherapy. Concurrent goserelin use should now be considered for all pre-menopausal women due to commence alkylating chemotherapy (except those with incurable cancer), regardless of their childbearing status, in an effort to preserve their ovarian function. For women who have not completed childbearing, consideration of other fertility preservation options, such as cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes, is also important.

Antifibrinolytics for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important physical and social problem for women. Oral treatment for HMB includes antifibrinolytic drugs, which are designed to reduce bleeding by inhibiting clot-dissolving enzymes in the endometrium.Historically, there has been some concern that using the antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) for HMB may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic disease. This is an umbrella term for deep venous thrombosis (blood clots in the blood vessels in the legs) and pulmonary emboli (blood clots in the blood vessels in the lungs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic medications as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two trials registers in November 2017, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antifibrinolytic agents versus placebo, no treatment or other medical treatment in women of reproductive age with HMB. Twelve studies utilised TXA and one utilised a prodrug of TXA (Kabi). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were menstrual blood loss (MBL), improvement in HMB, and thromboembolic events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (1312 participants analysed). The evidence was very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding, and poor reporting of study methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Antifibrinolytics (TXA or Kabi) versus no treatment or placeboWhen compared with a placebo, antifibrinolytics were associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -53.20 mL per cycle, 95% CI -62.70 to -43.70; I² = 8%; 4 RCTs, participants = 565; moderate-quality evidence) and higher rates of improvement (RR 3.34, 95% CI 1.84 to 6.09; 3 RCTS, participants = 271; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 11% of women improve without treatment, 43% to 63% of women taking antifibrinolytics will do so. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, participants = 297; low-quality evidence). Only one thromboembolic event occurred in the two studies that reported this outcome.TXA versus progestogensThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean blood loss measured using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) (MD -12.22 points per cycle, 95% CI -30.8 to 6.36; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, participants = 312; very low quality evidence), but TXA was associated with a higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.80; I² = 32%; 5 RCTs, participants = 422; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 46% of women improve with progestogens, 61% to 83% of women will do so with TXA.Adverse events were less common in the TXA group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94; I² = 28%; 4 RCTs, participants = 349; low-quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported in any group.TXA versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)TXA was associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -73.00 mL per cycle, 95% CI -123.35 to -22.65; 1 RCT, participants = 49; low-quality evidence) and higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.74; 12 = 0%; 2 RCTs, participants = 161; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 61% of women improve with NSAIDs, 71% to 100% of women will do so with TXA. Adverse events were uncommon and no comparative data were available. No thromboembolic events were reported.TXA versus ethamsylateTXA was associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD 100 mL per cycle, 95% CI -141.82 to -58.18; 1 RCT, participants = 53; low-quality evidence), but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of improvement (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.55; 1 RCT, participants = 53; very low quality evidence) or withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.15; 1 RCT, participants = 53; very low quality evidence).TXA versus herbal medicines (Safoof Habis and Punica granatum)TXA was associated with a reduced mean PBAC score after three months' treatment (MD -23.90 pts per cycle, 95% CI -31.92 to -15.88; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, participants = 121; low-quality evidence). No data were available for rates of improvement. TXA was associated with a reduced mean PBAC score three months after the end of the treatment phase (MD -10.40 points per cycle, 95% CI -19.20 to -1.60; I² not applicable; 1 RCT, participants = 84; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of adverse events (RR 2.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.80; 1 RCT, participants = 94; very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported.TXA versus levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LIUS)TXA was associated with a higher median PBAC score than TXA (median difference 125.5 points; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence) and a lower likelihood of improvement (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence). This suggests that if 85% of women improve with LIUS, 20% to 65% of women will do so with TXA. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.80; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antifibrinolytic treatment (such as TXA) appears effective for treating HMB compared to placebo, NSAIDs, oral luteal progestogens, ethamsylate, or herbal remedies, but may be less effective than LIUS. There were too few data for most comparisons to determine whether antifibrinolytics were associated with increased risk of adverse events, and most studies did not specifically include thromboembolism as an outcome.

What is the place of uterine artery embolisation in the management of symptomatic uterine fibroids?

BACKGROUND: Uterine artery embolisation (UAE) is an alternative to surgical management for symptomatic uterine fibroids and is increasingly performed in Australia. AIMS: To review the evidence for the efficacy, safety and acceptability of UAE and to evaluate the place of UAE in Australia. METHODS: The study used literature review. RESULTS: UAE compares favourably to hysterectomy and myomectomy in terms of short-term symptom relief, cost, patient satisfaction and complications. There is a paucity of evidence regarding fertility and pregnancy after UAE. A significant minority of women require re-intervention following UAE. CONCLUSIONS: UAE should be considered as an alternative to surgical management of symptomatic uterine fibroids in carefully selected and informed patients.

Non-hormonal treatments for menopausal symptoms.

Increasing numbers of women are requesting non-hormonal treatments for menopausal symptoms. Estrogen-containing HRT is the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms in healthy women but is contraindicated for some women and avoided by many others. This review will assess the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of non-hormonal treatments for menopausal symptoms. Relatively few high quality studies have addressed this issue, almost all have only addressed the treatment of hot flushes and there are few long-term data.

Therapy for menopausal symptoms during and after treatment for breast cancer : safety considerations.

Breast cancer is the most common newly diagnosed cancer in women. Life-time risk in the US is 1 in 8 (13.2%), in the UK it is 1 in 9 and in Australia it affects 1 in 11 women, of whom approximately 27% will be premenopausal at the time of their diagnosis. Many of these women will experience a sudden menopause as a result of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy or surgical interventions. For these women, the onset of menopausal symptoms is often sudden and severe. The management of such symptoms remains controversial. Women experiencing menopausal symptoms after breast cancer should be encouraged to avoid identifiable triggers for their symptoms and to consider lifestyle modification as a means of controlling those symptoms. When such measures fail, non-hormonal treatments may also be considered. These include clonidine, gabapentin and some antidepressants. Randomised trials have shown a significant difference in the symptom relief associated with various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and selective serotonin and noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors compared with placebo. Many women elect to use non-prescription complementary therapies to alleviate their menopausal symptoms. Systematic reviews of phytoestrogens have, however, failed to demonstrate significant relief of menopausal symptoms. More than 20 clinical trials have been conducted examining the relationship between postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer recurrence. The majority of these have been observational and have shown no increased risk of recurrence. However, the largest randomised trial that has thus far been conducted was recently halted because of a reported increase in the risk of recurrence amongst users of hormone replacement therapy. Tibolone, a selective tissue estrogen activity regulator, is a compound that exerts clinical effects both by receptor-mediated actions and tissue selective enzyme inhibition, and has been shown in preclinical studies to have different effects to estrogen on the breast. Although tibolone may prove safer than estrogen for long-term use in breast cancer survivors, the results of a large randomised trial are awaited to confirm this.The decision on how best to manage menopausal symptoms must thus be made on an individual basis and after thorough discussion and evaluation of the risks and benefits of each potential intervention.

Treatment of menopausal symptoms: what shall we do now?

During the past few years, many women and doctors have revised their opinions of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for menopausal symptoms, and a substantial number of individuals have discontinued its use because of concerns about side-effects. Numerous alternatives to HRT are promoted, and assessment of the quality of evidence about the safety and effectiveness of these compounds can be difficult. In this Review, we summarise the data from studies addressing the efficacy, risks, and benefits of frequently prescribed treatments, and offer evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of menopausal symptoms. Although few comparative studies exist, oestrogen alone or combinations of oestrogen and progestagen are likely to be the most effective treatments for menopausal hot flushes and vaginal dryness. Tibolone is as effective as HRT, however, and might also improve libido. For those who wish to avoid hormonal treatments, there are few effective options. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors might be effective in the very short term (less than 12 weeks) and are well tolerated. There is not enough evidence that any of the complementary therapies available are any better than placebo for menopausal vasomotor symptoms, and few safety data exist.