Eligibility criteria for using menopausal hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors: a safety report based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Menopause hormone therapy (MHT) effectively alleviates menopausal symptoms. However, it is generally not recommended for breast cancer survivors, although the scientific evidence is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish eligibility criteria for use of the MHT in breast cancer survivors based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We conducted exhaustive literature searches until June 2022 in MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, using a tailored strategy with a combination of controlled vocabulary and search terms related to breast cancer survivors and MHT. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tools. The quality of the evidence was graded according to grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations criteria (A, high; B, moderate; C, low; and D, very low). We categorized MHT use into four levels: category 1 (no restrictions on use), category 2 (the benefits outweigh the risks), category 3 (the risks generally outweigh the benefits), and category 4 (MHT should not be used). FINDINGS: A total of 12 studies met the eligibility criteria. Analysis of the three randomized clinical trials using combined MHT or tibolone revealed no significant differences concerning tumor recurrence (relative risk [RR], 1.46; 95% CI, 0.99-2.24). A combined analysis of randomized clinical trials, prospective, and retrospective trials found no elevated risk of recurrence (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.33) or death (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.38-2.19). The eligibility criteria for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors fell into categories 3B and 3C for combined MHT or estrogen alone and 4A for tibolone. For HR-negative tumors, the category was 2B and 2C. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings suggest that MHT could be a viable treatment alternative for breast cancer survivors experiencing menopausal symptoms, especially those with HR-negative tumors. Personalized management is recommended for each peri/postmenopausal woman facing a diminished quality of life because of menopause symptoms. Further randomized trials are needed before considering changes to current standards of care.

Role of lymphadenectomy in intermediate-risk endometrial cancer: a matched-pair study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of lymph node dissection (LND) on morbidity, survival, and cost for intermediate-risk endometrial cancers (IREC). METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort of 720 women with IREC (endometrioid histology with myometrial invasion <50% and grade 3; or myometrial invasion ≥50% and grades 1-2; or cervical involvement and grades 1-2) was carried out. All patients underwent hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A matched pair analysis identified 178 pairs (178 with LND and 178 without it) equal in age, body mass index, co-morbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologist score, myometrial invasion, and surgical approach. Demographic data, pathology results, perioperative morbidity, and survival were abstracted from medical records. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Cost analysis was carried out between both groups. RESULTS: Both study groups were homogeneous in demographic data and pathologic results. The mean follow-up in patients free of disease was 61.7 months (range, 12.0-275.5). DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.79-2.28) and OS (HR=0.72; 95% CI=0.42-1.23) were similar in both groups, independently of nodes count. In LND group, positive nodes were found in 10 cases (5.6%). Operating time and late postoperative complications were higher in LND group (p<0.05). Infection rate was significantly higher in no-LND group (p=0.035). There were no statistical differences between both groups regarding operative morbidity and hospital stay. The global cost was similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: Systematic LND in IREC has no benefit on survival, although it does not show an increase in perioperative morbidity or global cost.