Breast Cancer

MADRID – Adding the investigational PI3K inhibitor taselisib to letrozole (Femara) significantly improved overall response rates, compared with neoadjuvant letrozole alone, in postmenopausal women with early estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) breast cancer, results of the LORELEI trial show.

In this phase 2 trial, the overall response rate (ORR), the primary endpoint, was 50% for 166 patients assigned to letrozole plus taselisib, compared with 39.3% for 168 patients assigned to letrozole plus placebo, reported Cristina Saura, MD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

MADRID – Adding the investigational PI3K inhibitor taselisib to letrozole (Femara) significantly improved overall response rates, compared with neoadjuvant letrozole alone, in postmenopausal women with early estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) breast cancer, results of the LORELEI trial show.

In this phase 2 trial, the overall response rate (ORR), the primary endpoint, was 50% for 166 patients assigned to letrozole plus taselisib, compared with 39.3% for 168 patients assigned to letrozole plus placebo, reported Cristina Saura, MD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

MADRID – Adding the investigational PI3K inhibitor taselisib to letrozole (Femara) significantly improved overall response rates, compared with neoadjuvant letrozole alone, in postmenopausal women with early estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) breast cancer, results of the LORELEI trial show.

In this phase 2 trial, the overall response rate (ORR), the primary endpoint, was 50% for 166 patients assigned to letrozole plus taselisib, compared with 39.3% for 168 patients assigned to letrozole plus placebo, reported Cristina Saura, MD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

Surgeons, not clinical factors, accounted for 20% of variation in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), according to the results of a large survey study.

Only 4% of patients elected CPM when their surgeons were among those who least favored it overall and most preferred breast-conserving treatment, according to Steven J. Katz, MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates. But 34% of patients chose CPM when their surgeons least favored BCT and were most willing to perform CPM, the researchers found. “Attending surgeons exert strong influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after diagnosis of breast cancer,” highlighting “the need to help surgeons address this growing clinical conundrum in the examination room,” they wrote (JAMA Surg. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3415).

Rates of CPM have risen markedly in the United States although it has not been shown to confer a survival advantage for average-risk women. To examine how surgeons themselves affected rates of CPM, the investigators sent surveys to 7,810 women treated for stage 0 to II breast cancer from 2013 to 2015 and included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. (Among the 7,810 women, 507 were ineligible.) The researchers also surveyed 488 attending surgeons of these patients.

Response rates were high – 70% among patients (5,080 of 7,303) and 77% (377 of 488) among surgeons, the investigators reported. The average age of the patients was 62 years; 28% had an elevated risk of second primary cancer, and 16% underwent CPM. Patients whose surgeons’ rates of CPM exceeded the mean by at least one standard deviation had nearly threefold greater odds of undergoing CPM themselves (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-3.4) regardless of age, date of diagnosis, BRCA mutation status, or risk of second primary cancer.

“One quarter of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM,” the researchers wrote. Additional predictors of CPM included elevated risk of second primary breast cancer, BRCA mutation, and younger age.

“We observed a range of reasons why a surgeon would be willing to perform CPM if asked: give peace of mind, yield better cosmetic outcomes, avoid conflict with patient, reduce need for surveillance, improve long-term quality of life, reduce recurrence of invasive disease, avoid losing patient to another surgeon, or improve survival (in order of endorsement),” the researchers wrote. “Our findings reinforce the need to address better ways to communicate with patients with regard to their beliefs about the benefits of more extensive surgery and their reactions to the management plan including surgeon training and deployment of decision aids.”

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Surgeons, not clinical factors, accounted for 20% of variation in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), according to the results of a large survey study.

Only 4% of patients elected CPM when their surgeons were among those who least favored it overall and most preferred breast-conserving treatment, according to Steven J. Katz, MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates. But 34% of patients chose CPM when their surgeons least favored BCT and were most willing to perform CPM, the researchers found. “Attending surgeons exert strong influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after diagnosis of breast cancer,” highlighting “the need to help surgeons address this growing clinical conundrum in the examination room,” they wrote (JAMA Surg. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3415).

Rates of CPM have risen markedly in the United States although it has not been shown to confer a survival advantage for average-risk women. To examine how surgeons themselves affected rates of CPM, the investigators sent surveys to 7,810 women treated for stage 0 to II breast cancer from 2013 to 2015 and included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. (Among the 7,810 women, 507 were ineligible.) The researchers also surveyed 488 attending surgeons of these patients.

Response rates were high – 70% among patients (5,080 of 7,303) and 77% (377 of 488) among surgeons, the investigators reported. The average age of the patients was 62 years; 28% had an elevated risk of second primary cancer, and 16% underwent CPM. Patients whose surgeons’ rates of CPM exceeded the mean by at least one standard deviation had nearly threefold greater odds of undergoing CPM themselves (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-3.4) regardless of age, date of diagnosis, BRCA mutation status, or risk of second primary cancer.

“One quarter of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM,” the researchers wrote. Additional predictors of CPM included elevated risk of second primary breast cancer, BRCA mutation, and younger age.

“We observed a range of reasons why a surgeon would be willing to perform CPM if asked: give peace of mind, yield better cosmetic outcomes, avoid conflict with patient, reduce need for surveillance, improve long-term quality of life, reduce recurrence of invasive disease, avoid losing patient to another surgeon, or improve survival (in order of endorsement),” the researchers wrote. “Our findings reinforce the need to address better ways to communicate with patients with regard to their beliefs about the benefits of more extensive surgery and their reactions to the management plan including surgeon training and deployment of decision aids.”

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Surgeons, not clinical factors, accounted for 20% of variation in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), according to the results of a large survey study.

Only 4% of patients elected CPM when their surgeons were among those who least favored it overall and most preferred breast-conserving treatment, according to Steven J. Katz, MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates. But 34% of patients chose CPM when their surgeons least favored BCT and were most willing to perform CPM, the researchers found. “Attending surgeons exert strong influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after diagnosis of breast cancer,” highlighting “the need to help surgeons address this growing clinical conundrum in the examination room,” they wrote (JAMA Surg. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3415).

Rates of CPM have risen markedly in the United States although it has not been shown to confer a survival advantage for average-risk women. To examine how surgeons themselves affected rates of CPM, the investigators sent surveys to 7,810 women treated for stage 0 to II breast cancer from 2013 to 2015 and included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. (Among the 7,810 women, 507 were ineligible.) The researchers also surveyed 488 attending surgeons of these patients.

Response rates were high – 70% among patients (5,080 of 7,303) and 77% (377 of 488) among surgeons, the investigators reported. The average age of the patients was 62 years; 28% had an elevated risk of second primary cancer, and 16% underwent CPM. Patients whose surgeons’ rates of CPM exceeded the mean by at least one standard deviation had nearly threefold greater odds of undergoing CPM themselves (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-3.4) regardless of age, date of diagnosis, BRCA mutation status, or risk of second primary cancer.

“One quarter of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM,” the researchers wrote. Additional predictors of CPM included elevated risk of second primary breast cancer, BRCA mutation, and younger age.

“We observed a range of reasons why a surgeon would be willing to perform CPM if asked: give peace of mind, yield better cosmetic outcomes, avoid conflict with patient, reduce need for surveillance, improve long-term quality of life, reduce recurrence of invasive disease, avoid losing patient to another surgeon, or improve survival (in order of endorsement),” the researchers wrote. “Our findings reinforce the need to address better ways to communicate with patients with regard to their beliefs about the benefits of more extensive surgery and their reactions to the management plan including surgeon training and deployment of decision aids.”

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

A follow-up to a study showing the noninferiority of sentinel lymph node dissection to axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer in overall and disease-free survival at a median of 6.3 years found similar noninferiority in overall survival at 10 years.

Axillary lymph node dissection has a risk of complications including lymphedema, numbness, axillary web syndrome, and decreased upper-extremity range of motion. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial sought to determine if the procedure could be avoided without inferior survival outcomes.

Criticism of the study focused on the potential for later recurrence, particularly in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. All enrolled patients had one or two sentinel nodes with metastases. At randomization, 436 received sentinel lymph node dissection alone, and 420 received the additional axillary lymph node dissection. The patients were assessed every 6 months for the first 3 years, then annually.

After a median of 9.3 years, 110 of the patients had died of any cause – 51 in the sentinel lymph node dissection group and 59 in the axillary lymph node dissection group – a 10-year overall survival rate of 86.3% and 83.6%, respectively. This met the study’s primary endpoint of showing noninferior overall survival without the riskier procedure. In the study’s secondary endpoint, disease-free survival, there was not a significant difference either (80.2% vs. 78.2%).

“Axillary dissections are associated with considerable morbidity, and the results of this trial demonstrated that this morbidity can be avoided without decreasing cancer control. … These findings do not support routine use of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes,” wrote Armando E. Guiliano, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical, Los Angeles and his coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[10]:918-26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470).

[email protected]

A follow-up to a study showing the noninferiority of sentinel lymph node dissection to axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer in overall and disease-free survival at a median of 6.3 years found similar noninferiority in overall survival at 10 years.

Axillary lymph node dissection has a risk of complications including lymphedema, numbness, axillary web syndrome, and decreased upper-extremity range of motion. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial sought to determine if the procedure could be avoided without inferior survival outcomes.

Criticism of the study focused on the potential for later recurrence, particularly in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. All enrolled patients had one or two sentinel nodes with metastases. At randomization, 436 received sentinel lymph node dissection alone, and 420 received the additional axillary lymph node dissection. The patients were assessed every 6 months for the first 3 years, then annually.

After a median of 9.3 years, 110 of the patients had died of any cause – 51 in the sentinel lymph node dissection group and 59 in the axillary lymph node dissection group – a 10-year overall survival rate of 86.3% and 83.6%, respectively. This met the study’s primary endpoint of showing noninferior overall survival without the riskier procedure. In the study’s secondary endpoint, disease-free survival, there was not a significant difference either (80.2% vs. 78.2%).

“Axillary dissections are associated with considerable morbidity, and the results of this trial demonstrated that this morbidity can be avoided without decreasing cancer control. … These findings do not support routine use of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes,” wrote Armando E. Guiliano, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical, Los Angeles and his coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[10]:918-26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470).

[email protected]

A follow-up to a study showing the noninferiority of sentinel lymph node dissection to axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer in overall and disease-free survival at a median of 6.3 years found similar noninferiority in overall survival at 10 years.

Axillary lymph node dissection has a risk of complications including lymphedema, numbness, axillary web syndrome, and decreased upper-extremity range of motion. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial sought to determine if the procedure could be avoided without inferior survival outcomes.

Criticism of the study focused on the potential for later recurrence, particularly in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. All enrolled patients had one or two sentinel nodes with metastases. At randomization, 436 received sentinel lymph node dissection alone, and 420 received the additional axillary lymph node dissection. The patients were assessed every 6 months for the first 3 years, then annually.

After a median of 9.3 years, 110 of the patients had died of any cause – 51 in the sentinel lymph node dissection group and 59 in the axillary lymph node dissection group – a 10-year overall survival rate of 86.3% and 83.6%, respectively. This met the study’s primary endpoint of showing noninferior overall survival without the riskier procedure. In the study’s secondary endpoint, disease-free survival, there was not a significant difference either (80.2% vs. 78.2%).

“Axillary dissections are associated with considerable morbidity, and the results of this trial demonstrated that this morbidity can be avoided without decreasing cancer control. … These findings do not support routine use of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes,” wrote Armando E. Guiliano, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical, Los Angeles and his coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[10]:918-26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470).

[email protected]

Breast cancer survivors comprise the most prevalent cancer survivor population in the United States.¹ The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing because of early detection and diagnosis, and advances in treatment have resulted in increased life expectancy. Therefore, greater attention is needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these survivors and to help them re-adjust to normal life. For many women, although the medical treatment may have been completed, the recovery process may have not.² The prevalence of long-term mental and physical illness is significant among many breast cancer survivors. Long-term mental consequences may include memory problems, anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence³, and long-term physical consequences may include pain, fatigue, and lymphedema, among others.⁴

El Paso, Texas, is the fourth most populous city in Texas and has a Hispanic majority. This provides an opportunity to conduct clinical research targeting participants of Hispanic descent. Several studies have noted the influence of race/ethnicity on the psychosocial function of breast cancer survivors.^5,6 We have previously reported that Hispanic breast cancer survivors might experience decreased mental and physical health-related quality of life (QoL) which limit their normal social functioning.⁶Other studies have similarly reported poor outcomes of breast cancer survivors and higher rates of fatigue and depression among Hispanic patients.⁷ However, there is a paucity of research addressing specific interventions needed to improve these outcomes and provide better QoL for breast cancer survivors.^8,9 In addition, a few survivorship care interventions have focused on minorities. We sought to assess whether a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program in a primarily Hispanic populated area would lead to improved QoL and reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms among breast cancer survivors.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited consecutive patients who were treated at our institution during October 2013-October 2014 and obtained informed consent from them. The participants were within the first 5 years after diagnosis with stages I-III breast cancer and had completed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether breast cancer survivors would benefit from this intervention as determined by improvement of performance at 12 months compared with baseline based on the following self-reported validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression; General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); and Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36, version 2) for patient quality of life. The participants were enrolled in a comprehensive survivorship program staffed by an oncologist, an oncology nurse practitioner, a nutritionist, and a certified clinical psychologist who had trained in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).

Interventions

The participants received a one-on-one individual psychological consultation visit every 3 months for 20-45 minutes during which the psychologist addressed each patient’s emotional and psychological issues in depth, discussed relaxation techniques, and provided psychosocial counselling. In addition, all participants were asked to attend an 8-week-course (in Spanish or English) using MBSR, an interventional program in which participants receive training to promote reduction of stress by self-regulating mindfulness practice.^3,10 Our institution’s MBSR program consists of a weekly 2-hour class for 8 sessions or more. The program is provided 3 times a year, in English and Spanish. It includes the following components:

• Learning various mindfulness meditation techniques (eg, body scans, awareness of breathing, sitting/walking meditations);
• Practicing the mindfulness techniques in class; and
• Practicing techniques at home through audiorecordings of mindfulness meditation exercises and daily diary writing.

Participants were provided with a workbook on MBSR in their preferred language.¹¹ In addition to the psychological component, they were also provided with oncologic evaluations by an oncology nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner met with participants every 3 months and provided each one with a personalized summary of all the treatments received and routine oncology follow-up care in consultation with the patients’ regular oncologists. This care also addresses the long-term sequelae of treatment, including arthritis and osteoporosis, referrals to receive screening for other cancers (eg, cervical and colon cancer), and genetic counselling as appropriate. In addition, a nutritionist provided general dietary advice in individual and group sessions every 3 months.

The self-administered questionnaires, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and SF-36, were completed at baseline, and every 3 months for 12 months. The scores were reviewed by the psychologist and the oncologist. The PHQ-9 was used to initially screen survivors for depression and monitor their improvement after the intervention. The PHQ-9 is a reliable and validated self-administered depression module.¹² The PQH-9 exclusively focuses on the 9 diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV depression disorder and it can be used as a useful measure for monitoring outcomes of depression therapy. A score of 5-14 suggests mild-moderate depression, and a score of >15 suggests severe depression

The survivors were screened for anxiety using the GAD-7, a brief 7-item self-report scale to identify probable cases of anxiety disorder that has been shown to be an efficient tool for screening and assessing the severity of anxiety.¹³ For GAD-7, a score of 5 or higher is suggestive of anxiety. Scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively.

Survivor QoL was evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire, a multipurpose survey containing 36 questions. It ranges from 0-100 and a score that is <50.0 is considered low. The lower the score, the worse the mental or physical function.¹⁴ The SF-36 yields a patient profile of 8 health domains – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical, emotional, and social role functioning; and mental health.^15,16 A score of 50.0 on either the Physical Component Summary (PCS – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning) or Mental Component Summary (MCS – emotional and social role functioning, and mental health) is consistent with the US norm.

Statistical analysis

In this study, the primary objective was to use the MBSR survivorship program to improve the survivors’ outcomes at 12 months compared with baseline using the following measures: PHQ-9 for depression, GAD-7 for anxiety, and SF-36 for QoL using the PCS and MCS. Quantitative data were described using the mean and standard deviation, and categorical data were described using frequency and percentage. The outcome measures were compared between patients who completed 12-month follow-up and those who did not, using unpaired t test. The change in outcome measures at 12 months from baseline was evaluated using paired t test. The effect of intervention was summarized using relative percentage change. The “dose” of the intervention was categorized the number of MBSR sessions – ≤4 sessions, 5-7 sessions, or ≤8 sessions. The change in outcome measures were compared among three groups using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc multiple comparison using the Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, the effect of intervention on each outcome was evaluated by important baseline characteristics of patients. In each subgroup, the changes were compared with baseline measures using the paired t test, whereas changes in outcome between groups were compared using the unpaired t test. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.3. P-values less than 5% were considered to be significant.

Results

A total of 94 survivors of breast cancer were included in this study and 60 (63.8%) completed the 12 months of follow-up. The average age of the participants was 54.4 years (SD, 8.7), and 90.4% were Hispanic (Table 1). Tumor characteristics were as follows: invasive ductal carcinoma (84.04%), estrogen receptor–positive (ER-, 71.28%), progesterone receptor–positive (PR-, 58.51%), and HER2-neu–positive (20%). In regard to therapy received, 48% of the participants had received anthracycline- and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy and 23%, nonanthracycline-based chemotherapy; 71% had received anti-estrogen (hormonal) therapy and 80%, radiation therapy. In regard to surgery, half of the participants had a lumpectomy, and half, a mastectomy. The trends in the outcome measures over the follow-up period are show in the Figure 1.

The effect of the number of MBSR sessions attended on the outcome measures is summarized in Table 3. There were significant improvements in the 12-month MCS scores for patients who completed 5-7 sessions of MBSR or ≥8 sessions, compared with patients who completed ≤4 sessions of MBSR. There was an improvement observed in PCS scores only among patients who received at least 8 sessions of MBSR. There was a marked improvement observed in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 among patients who received ≥8 sessions. There was no statistically significant change in the GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scores between patients who received ≤4 sessions and 5-7 sessions. No significant association was obtained between number of MBSR sessions attended and BMI.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that a group of predominately Hispanic breast cancer survivors benefited from participating in a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program that emphasized in-depth psychological care and MBSR. They also benefited from an education effort that included providing survivors with personalized summaries of their treatment and oncology survivorship care, addressing potential long-term side effects of treatment, referral for genetic counselling and screening for other cancers as appropriate, as well dietary advice. We found significant improvement compared with baseline in both mental and physical determinants of the patient-reported outcomes, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), and HR-QoL (PCS) and (MCS). Survivors demonstrated significant improvement on the MCS and PHQ-9 if they attended 5 or more sessions of the 8-week MBSR course, and attending 8 sessions was associated with significant improvement in GAD-7 and PCS. This might suggest that survivors who are more motivated do benefit the most from such program.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to address the benefit of the MBSR intervention in Hispanic breast cancer survivors. In a randomized controlled trial that included breast cancer survivors with stages 0-III breast cancer who completed surgery, adjunctive radiation, and/or chemotherapy, MBSR was shown to reduce the symptoms of depression and anxiety and increase energy and physical functioning compared with participants who received “usual care”.³ Furthermore, Bower and colleagues have reported improvements in sleep, fatigue, and pro-inflammatory signaling in younger survivors of breast cancer.¹⁷ A similar standardized MBSR program was tested on Danish women who had been treated for stage I-III breast cancer¹⁸ and the results showed reduced levels of anxiety and depression at the 12-month follow-up. A similar study by Hoffman and colleagues¹⁹ reported improved mood, breast- and endocrine-related quality of life, and well-being with MBSR compared with standard care in women with stage 0-III breast cancer.

Several theories have been suggested to explain how MBSR reduces symptoms of depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors, one of which is that it provides supportive interaction between group members to practice meditation and apply mindfulness in daily situations.³ In addition, evidence is beginning to emerge that stress-reducing interventions such as MBSR may improve telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA), the markers for cellular aging, psychological stress, and disease risk.^20-24 Lengacher and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of MBSR on TL and TA in women with breast cancer, and suggested that MBSR increases telomere length and telomerase activity.²⁵ The 142 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer had completed adjuvant treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy at least 2 weeks before enrollment and within 2 years of completion of treatment with lumpectomy and/or mastectomy. They were randomly assigned to either a 6-week MBSR for breast cancer program or usual care.²⁵ Assessments of TA and TL were obtained along with psychological measurements at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the patients had completed the MBSR program. The mean age of the participants was 55.3 years; 72% were non-Hispanic white; 78% had stage I or II cancer; and 36% received both chemotherapy and radiation. In analyses adjusted for baseline TA and psychological status, TA increased steadily by about 17% over 12 weeks in the MBSR group, compared with about 3% (P < .01) in the control group. No difference was observed for TL (P = .92). The authors concluded that the data provide preliminary evidence that MBSR increases TA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from breast cancer patients and have implications for understanding how MBSR may extend cell longevity at the cellular level.

In another study among healthy volunteers who were randomly assigned to a 3-month meditation retreat or a control group, the 30 participants in the meditation group had higher TA compared with controls.²⁰ In a nonrandomized study among prostate cancer patients, TA increased and psychological stress decreased following a stress-reducing, lifestyle-modification program.²¹ The results of another intervention study among overweight women showed improvement in distress, eating behavior, and metabolic health in women participating in a MBSR program, all of which correlated with increases in TA.²² Most recently, researchers explored the impact on TA of a Kirtan Kriya yogic meditation intervention compared with exposure to relaxing music in 39 dementia family caregivers. The yogic-meditation intervention group had a 43% increase in TA after the 8-week intervention period compared with 3.7% the music group (P < .05).²³ Finally, among 22 patients with cervical cancer who were randomized to a psychosocial telephone counseling intervention,²⁴ investigators found a significant association between increased TL and changes in psychological distress.²⁰ Findings from other studies have assessed interventions to improve outcome of breast cancer survivors, such as the Taking CHARGE self-management intervention that is designed to facilitate the transition to survivorship after breast cancer treatment.⁸ Another intervention using home-based physical activity was shown in a randomized controlled trial to improve self-reported physical activity, body-mass index, and health-related QoL.⁹ Findings from another study suggested that a combined exercise and psychological counselling program might improve QoL more than a single entity intervention.²⁶ As noted previously, these studies did not focus on minority breast cancer survivors’ population, and it is not clear if they are generalizable to Hispanics.

In addition to the MBSR component, our program has also included one-on-one psychological assessment for long-term treatment complications and provided participants with appropriate care and follow-up plans, adding the benefits of self-awareness and self-attention for the survivors, which can effectively reduce the fear of recurrence.³ Furthermore, we included dietary consults based on general cancer survivor guidelines recommending a high fruit and vegetable diet that is low in fat and sugar.²⁷ Healthier dietary lifestyle has been reported to improve breast cancer prognosis, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular outcomes among Hispanic breast cancer survivors.²⁸

Our study has some limitations, including a relatively small sample size. It did not include an exercise program, which would have been helpful in addressing the issue of overweight and obesity we encountered in the most of the Hispanic breast cancer survivors (baseline average BMI, 31.32 kg/m²; obesity range, >30 kg/m²). Because of the small sample size and nonrandomized design of the study, it is hard to evaluate the confounding effect of time on intervention effect. However, a subgroup analysis by MBSR number of sessions showed that the survivors who completed the full course of MBSR sessions (8 sessions) achieved superior benefit, compared with those who did not complete the full course, which indicates that the intervention did weigh in regardless of time. Despite these limitations, the participants in this interventional program showed improved outcomes, including less anxiety and depression and improved MCS score of the SF-36. A larger and longer follow-up prospective, randomized study is needed to validate the findings of this study. Implementing cancer survivorship as an integral component of cancer care during and after treatment is essential to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors and empower them in their transition from cancer treatment to survivorship.

Breast cancer survivors comprise the most prevalent cancer survivor population in the United States.¹ The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing because of early detection and diagnosis, and advances in treatment have resulted in increased life expectancy. Therefore, greater attention is needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these survivors and to help them re-adjust to normal life. For many women, although the medical treatment may have been completed, the recovery process may have not.² The prevalence of long-term mental and physical illness is significant among many breast cancer survivors. Long-term mental consequences may include memory problems, anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence³, and long-term physical consequences may include pain, fatigue, and lymphedema, among others.⁴

El Paso, Texas, is the fourth most populous city in Texas and has a Hispanic majority. This provides an opportunity to conduct clinical research targeting participants of Hispanic descent. Several studies have noted the influence of race/ethnicity on the psychosocial function of breast cancer survivors.^5,6 We have previously reported that Hispanic breast cancer survivors might experience decreased mental and physical health-related quality of life (QoL) which limit their normal social functioning.⁶Other studies have similarly reported poor outcomes of breast cancer survivors and higher rates of fatigue and depression among Hispanic patients.⁷ However, there is a paucity of research addressing specific interventions needed to improve these outcomes and provide better QoL for breast cancer survivors.^8,9 In addition, a few survivorship care interventions have focused on minorities. We sought to assess whether a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program in a primarily Hispanic populated area would lead to improved QoL and reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms among breast cancer survivors.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited consecutive patients who were treated at our institution during October 2013-October 2014 and obtained informed consent from them. The participants were within the first 5 years after diagnosis with stages I-III breast cancer and had completed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether breast cancer survivors would benefit from this intervention as determined by improvement of performance at 12 months compared with baseline based on the following self-reported validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression; General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); and Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36, version 2) for patient quality of life. The participants were enrolled in a comprehensive survivorship program staffed by an oncologist, an oncology nurse practitioner, a nutritionist, and a certified clinical psychologist who had trained in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).

Interventions

The participants received a one-on-one individual psychological consultation visit every 3 months for 20-45 minutes during which the psychologist addressed each patient’s emotional and psychological issues in depth, discussed relaxation techniques, and provided psychosocial counselling. In addition, all participants were asked to attend an 8-week-course (in Spanish or English) using MBSR, an interventional program in which participants receive training to promote reduction of stress by self-regulating mindfulness practice.^3,10 Our institution’s MBSR program consists of a weekly 2-hour class for 8 sessions or more. The program is provided 3 times a year, in English and Spanish. It includes the following components:

• Learning various mindfulness meditation techniques (eg, body scans, awareness of breathing, sitting/walking meditations);
• Practicing the mindfulness techniques in class; and
• Practicing techniques at home through audiorecordings of mindfulness meditation exercises and daily diary writing.

Participants were provided with a workbook on MBSR in their preferred language.¹¹ In addition to the psychological component, they were also provided with oncologic evaluations by an oncology nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner met with participants every 3 months and provided each one with a personalized summary of all the treatments received and routine oncology follow-up care in consultation with the patients’ regular oncologists. This care also addresses the long-term sequelae of treatment, including arthritis and osteoporosis, referrals to receive screening for other cancers (eg, cervical and colon cancer), and genetic counselling as appropriate. In addition, a nutritionist provided general dietary advice in individual and group sessions every 3 months.

The self-administered questionnaires, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and SF-36, were completed at baseline, and every 3 months for 12 months. The scores were reviewed by the psychologist and the oncologist. The PHQ-9 was used to initially screen survivors for depression and monitor their improvement after the intervention. The PHQ-9 is a reliable and validated self-administered depression module.¹² The PQH-9 exclusively focuses on the 9 diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV depression disorder and it can be used as a useful measure for monitoring outcomes of depression therapy. A score of 5-14 suggests mild-moderate depression, and a score of >15 suggests severe depression

The survivors were screened for anxiety using the GAD-7, a brief 7-item self-report scale to identify probable cases of anxiety disorder that has been shown to be an efficient tool for screening and assessing the severity of anxiety.¹³ For GAD-7, a score of 5 or higher is suggestive of anxiety. Scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively.

Survivor QoL was evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire, a multipurpose survey containing 36 questions. It ranges from 0-100 and a score that is <50.0 is considered low. The lower the score, the worse the mental or physical function.¹⁴ The SF-36 yields a patient profile of 8 health domains – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical, emotional, and social role functioning; and mental health.^15,16 A score of 50.0 on either the Physical Component Summary (PCS – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning) or Mental Component Summary (MCS – emotional and social role functioning, and mental health) is consistent with the US norm.

Statistical analysis

In this study, the primary objective was to use the MBSR survivorship program to improve the survivors’ outcomes at 12 months compared with baseline using the following measures: PHQ-9 for depression, GAD-7 for anxiety, and SF-36 for QoL using the PCS and MCS. Quantitative data were described using the mean and standard deviation, and categorical data were described using frequency and percentage. The outcome measures were compared between patients who completed 12-month follow-up and those who did not, using unpaired t test. The change in outcome measures at 12 months from baseline was evaluated using paired t test. The effect of intervention was summarized using relative percentage change. The “dose” of the intervention was categorized the number of MBSR sessions – ≤4 sessions, 5-7 sessions, or ≤8 sessions. The change in outcome measures were compared among three groups using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc multiple comparison using the Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, the effect of intervention on each outcome was evaluated by important baseline characteristics of patients. In each subgroup, the changes were compared with baseline measures using the paired t test, whereas changes in outcome between groups were compared using the unpaired t test. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.3. P-values less than 5% were considered to be significant.

Results

A total of 94 survivors of breast cancer were included in this study and 60 (63.8%) completed the 12 months of follow-up. The average age of the participants was 54.4 years (SD, 8.7), and 90.4% were Hispanic (Table 1). Tumor characteristics were as follows: invasive ductal carcinoma (84.04%), estrogen receptor–positive (ER-, 71.28%), progesterone receptor–positive (PR-, 58.51%), and HER2-neu–positive (20%). In regard to therapy received, 48% of the participants had received anthracycline- and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy and 23%, nonanthracycline-based chemotherapy; 71% had received anti-estrogen (hormonal) therapy and 80%, radiation therapy. In regard to surgery, half of the participants had a lumpectomy, and half, a mastectomy. The trends in the outcome measures over the follow-up period are show in the Figure 1.

The effect of the number of MBSR sessions attended on the outcome measures is summarized in Table 3. There were significant improvements in the 12-month MCS scores for patients who completed 5-7 sessions of MBSR or ≥8 sessions, compared with patients who completed ≤4 sessions of MBSR. There was an improvement observed in PCS scores only among patients who received at least 8 sessions of MBSR. There was a marked improvement observed in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 among patients who received ≥8 sessions. There was no statistically significant change in the GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scores between patients who received ≤4 sessions and 5-7 sessions. No significant association was obtained between number of MBSR sessions attended and BMI.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that a group of predominately Hispanic breast cancer survivors benefited from participating in a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program that emphasized in-depth psychological care and MBSR. They also benefited from an education effort that included providing survivors with personalized summaries of their treatment and oncology survivorship care, addressing potential long-term side effects of treatment, referral for genetic counselling and screening for other cancers as appropriate, as well dietary advice. We found significant improvement compared with baseline in both mental and physical determinants of the patient-reported outcomes, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), and HR-QoL (PCS) and (MCS). Survivors demonstrated significant improvement on the MCS and PHQ-9 if they attended 5 or more sessions of the 8-week MBSR course, and attending 8 sessions was associated with significant improvement in GAD-7 and PCS. This might suggest that survivors who are more motivated do benefit the most from such program.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to address the benefit of the MBSR intervention in Hispanic breast cancer survivors. In a randomized controlled trial that included breast cancer survivors with stages 0-III breast cancer who completed surgery, adjunctive radiation, and/or chemotherapy, MBSR was shown to reduce the symptoms of depression and anxiety and increase energy and physical functioning compared with participants who received “usual care”.³ Furthermore, Bower and colleagues have reported improvements in sleep, fatigue, and pro-inflammatory signaling in younger survivors of breast cancer.¹⁷ A similar standardized MBSR program was tested on Danish women who had been treated for stage I-III breast cancer¹⁸ and the results showed reduced levels of anxiety and depression at the 12-month follow-up. A similar study by Hoffman and colleagues¹⁹ reported improved mood, breast- and endocrine-related quality of life, and well-being with MBSR compared with standard care in women with stage 0-III breast cancer.

Several theories have been suggested to explain how MBSR reduces symptoms of depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors, one of which is that it provides supportive interaction between group members to practice meditation and apply mindfulness in daily situations.³ In addition, evidence is beginning to emerge that stress-reducing interventions such as MBSR may improve telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA), the markers for cellular aging, psychological stress, and disease risk.^20-24 Lengacher and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of MBSR on TL and TA in women with breast cancer, and suggested that MBSR increases telomere length and telomerase activity.²⁵ The 142 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer had completed adjuvant treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy at least 2 weeks before enrollment and within 2 years of completion of treatment with lumpectomy and/or mastectomy. They were randomly assigned to either a 6-week MBSR for breast cancer program or usual care.²⁵ Assessments of TA and TL were obtained along with psychological measurements at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the patients had completed the MBSR program. The mean age of the participants was 55.3 years; 72% were non-Hispanic white; 78% had stage I or II cancer; and 36% received both chemotherapy and radiation. In analyses adjusted for baseline TA and psychological status, TA increased steadily by about 17% over 12 weeks in the MBSR group, compared with about 3% (P < .01) in the control group. No difference was observed for TL (P = .92). The authors concluded that the data provide preliminary evidence that MBSR increases TA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from breast cancer patients and have implications for understanding how MBSR may extend cell longevity at the cellular level.

In another study among healthy volunteers who were randomly assigned to a 3-month meditation retreat or a control group, the 30 participants in the meditation group had higher TA compared with controls.²⁰ In a nonrandomized study among prostate cancer patients, TA increased and psychological stress decreased following a stress-reducing, lifestyle-modification program.²¹ The results of another intervention study among overweight women showed improvement in distress, eating behavior, and metabolic health in women participating in a MBSR program, all of which correlated with increases in TA.²² Most recently, researchers explored the impact on TA of a Kirtan Kriya yogic meditation intervention compared with exposure to relaxing music in 39 dementia family caregivers. The yogic-meditation intervention group had a 43% increase in TA after the 8-week intervention period compared with 3.7% the music group (P < .05).²³ Finally, among 22 patients with cervical cancer who were randomized to a psychosocial telephone counseling intervention,²⁴ investigators found a significant association between increased TL and changes in psychological distress.²⁰ Findings from other studies have assessed interventions to improve outcome of breast cancer survivors, such as the Taking CHARGE self-management intervention that is designed to facilitate the transition to survivorship after breast cancer treatment.⁸ Another intervention using home-based physical activity was shown in a randomized controlled trial to improve self-reported physical activity, body-mass index, and health-related QoL.⁹ Findings from another study suggested that a combined exercise and psychological counselling program might improve QoL more than a single entity intervention.²⁶ As noted previously, these studies did not focus on minority breast cancer survivors’ population, and it is not clear if they are generalizable to Hispanics.

In addition to the MBSR component, our program has also included one-on-one psychological assessment for long-term treatment complications and provided participants with appropriate care and follow-up plans, adding the benefits of self-awareness and self-attention for the survivors, which can effectively reduce the fear of recurrence.³ Furthermore, we included dietary consults based on general cancer survivor guidelines recommending a high fruit and vegetable diet that is low in fat and sugar.²⁷ Healthier dietary lifestyle has been reported to improve breast cancer prognosis, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular outcomes among Hispanic breast cancer survivors.²⁸

Our study has some limitations, including a relatively small sample size. It did not include an exercise program, which would have been helpful in addressing the issue of overweight and obesity we encountered in the most of the Hispanic breast cancer survivors (baseline average BMI, 31.32 kg/m²; obesity range, >30 kg/m²). Because of the small sample size and nonrandomized design of the study, it is hard to evaluate the confounding effect of time on intervention effect. However, a subgroup analysis by MBSR number of sessions showed that the survivors who completed the full course of MBSR sessions (8 sessions) achieved superior benefit, compared with those who did not complete the full course, which indicates that the intervention did weigh in regardless of time. Despite these limitations, the participants in this interventional program showed improved outcomes, including less anxiety and depression and improved MCS score of the SF-36. A larger and longer follow-up prospective, randomized study is needed to validate the findings of this study. Implementing cancer survivorship as an integral component of cancer care during and after treatment is essential to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors and empower them in their transition from cancer treatment to survivorship.

Breast cancer survivors comprise the most prevalent cancer survivor population in the United States.¹ The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing because of early detection and diagnosis, and advances in treatment have resulted in increased life expectancy. Therefore, greater attention is needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these survivors and to help them re-adjust to normal life. For many women, although the medical treatment may have been completed, the recovery process may have not.² The prevalence of long-term mental and physical illness is significant among many breast cancer survivors. Long-term mental consequences may include memory problems, anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence³, and long-term physical consequences may include pain, fatigue, and lymphedema, among others.⁴

El Paso, Texas, is the fourth most populous city in Texas and has a Hispanic majority. This provides an opportunity to conduct clinical research targeting participants of Hispanic descent. Several studies have noted the influence of race/ethnicity on the psychosocial function of breast cancer survivors.^5,6 We have previously reported that Hispanic breast cancer survivors might experience decreased mental and physical health-related quality of life (QoL) which limit their normal social functioning.⁶Other studies have similarly reported poor outcomes of breast cancer survivors and higher rates of fatigue and depression among Hispanic patients.⁷ However, there is a paucity of research addressing specific interventions needed to improve these outcomes and provide better QoL for breast cancer survivors.^8,9 In addition, a few survivorship care interventions have focused on minorities. We sought to assess whether a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program in a primarily Hispanic populated area would lead to improved QoL and reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms among breast cancer survivors.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited consecutive patients who were treated at our institution during October 2013-October 2014 and obtained informed consent from them. The participants were within the first 5 years after diagnosis with stages I-III breast cancer and had completed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether breast cancer survivors would benefit from this intervention as determined by improvement of performance at 12 months compared with baseline based on the following self-reported validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression; General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); and Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36, version 2) for patient quality of life. The participants were enrolled in a comprehensive survivorship program staffed by an oncologist, an oncology nurse practitioner, a nutritionist, and a certified clinical psychologist who had trained in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).

Interventions

The participants received a one-on-one individual psychological consultation visit every 3 months for 20-45 minutes during which the psychologist addressed each patient’s emotional and psychological issues in depth, discussed relaxation techniques, and provided psychosocial counselling. In addition, all participants were asked to attend an 8-week-course (in Spanish or English) using MBSR, an interventional program in which participants receive training to promote reduction of stress by self-regulating mindfulness practice.^3,10 Our institution’s MBSR program consists of a weekly 2-hour class for 8 sessions or more. The program is provided 3 times a year, in English and Spanish. It includes the following components:

• Learning various mindfulness meditation techniques (eg, body scans, awareness of breathing, sitting/walking meditations);
• Practicing the mindfulness techniques in class; and
• Practicing techniques at home through audiorecordings of mindfulness meditation exercises and daily diary writing.

Participants were provided with a workbook on MBSR in their preferred language.¹¹ In addition to the psychological component, they were also provided with oncologic evaluations by an oncology nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner met with participants every 3 months and provided each one with a personalized summary of all the treatments received and routine oncology follow-up care in consultation with the patients’ regular oncologists. This care also addresses the long-term sequelae of treatment, including arthritis and osteoporosis, referrals to receive screening for other cancers (eg, cervical and colon cancer), and genetic counselling as appropriate. In addition, a nutritionist provided general dietary advice in individual and group sessions every 3 months.

The self-administered questionnaires, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and SF-36, were completed at baseline, and every 3 months for 12 months. The scores were reviewed by the psychologist and the oncologist. The PHQ-9 was used to initially screen survivors for depression and monitor their improvement after the intervention. The PHQ-9 is a reliable and validated self-administered depression module.¹² The PQH-9 exclusively focuses on the 9 diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV depression disorder and it can be used as a useful measure for monitoring outcomes of depression therapy. A score of 5-14 suggests mild-moderate depression, and a score of >15 suggests severe depression

The survivors were screened for anxiety using the GAD-7, a brief 7-item self-report scale to identify probable cases of anxiety disorder that has been shown to be an efficient tool for screening and assessing the severity of anxiety.¹³ For GAD-7, a score of 5 or higher is suggestive of anxiety. Scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively.

Survivor QoL was evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire, a multipurpose survey containing 36 questions. It ranges from 0-100 and a score that is <50.0 is considered low. The lower the score, the worse the mental or physical function.¹⁴ The SF-36 yields a patient profile of 8 health domains – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical, emotional, and social role functioning; and mental health.^15,16 A score of 50.0 on either the Physical Component Summary (PCS – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning) or Mental Component Summary (MCS – emotional and social role functioning, and mental health) is consistent with the US norm.

Statistical analysis

In this study, the primary objective was to use the MBSR survivorship program to improve the survivors’ outcomes at 12 months compared with baseline using the following measures: PHQ-9 for depression, GAD-7 for anxiety, and SF-36 for QoL using the PCS and MCS. Quantitative data were described using the mean and standard deviation, and categorical data were described using frequency and percentage. The outcome measures were compared between patients who completed 12-month follow-up and those who did not, using unpaired t test. The change in outcome measures at 12 months from baseline was evaluated using paired t test. The effect of intervention was summarized using relative percentage change. The “dose” of the intervention was categorized the number of MBSR sessions – ≤4 sessions, 5-7 sessions, or ≤8 sessions. The change in outcome measures were compared among three groups using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc multiple comparison using the Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, the effect of intervention on each outcome was evaluated by important baseline characteristics of patients. In each subgroup, the changes were compared with baseline measures using the paired t test, whereas changes in outcome between groups were compared using the unpaired t test. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.3. P-values less than 5% were considered to be significant.

Results

A total of 94 survivors of breast cancer were included in this study and 60 (63.8%) completed the 12 months of follow-up. The average age of the participants was 54.4 years (SD, 8.7), and 90.4% were Hispanic (Table 1). Tumor characteristics were as follows: invasive ductal carcinoma (84.04%), estrogen receptor–positive (ER-, 71.28%), progesterone receptor–positive (PR-, 58.51%), and HER2-neu–positive (20%). In regard to therapy received, 48% of the participants had received anthracycline- and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy and 23%, nonanthracycline-based chemotherapy; 71% had received anti-estrogen (hormonal) therapy and 80%, radiation therapy. In regard to surgery, half of the participants had a lumpectomy, and half, a mastectomy. The trends in the outcome measures over the follow-up period are show in the Figure 1.

The effect of the number of MBSR sessions attended on the outcome measures is summarized in Table 3. There were significant improvements in the 12-month MCS scores for patients who completed 5-7 sessions of MBSR or ≥8 sessions, compared with patients who completed ≤4 sessions of MBSR. There was an improvement observed in PCS scores only among patients who received at least 8 sessions of MBSR. There was a marked improvement observed in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 among patients who received ≥8 sessions. There was no statistically significant change in the GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scores between patients who received ≤4 sessions and 5-7 sessions. No significant association was obtained between number of MBSR sessions attended and BMI.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that a group of predominately Hispanic breast cancer survivors benefited from participating in a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program that emphasized in-depth psychological care and MBSR. They also benefited from an education effort that included providing survivors with personalized summaries of their treatment and oncology survivorship care, addressing potential long-term side effects of treatment, referral for genetic counselling and screening for other cancers as appropriate, as well dietary advice. We found significant improvement compared with baseline in both mental and physical determinants of the patient-reported outcomes, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), and HR-QoL (PCS) and (MCS). Survivors demonstrated significant improvement on the MCS and PHQ-9 if they attended 5 or more sessions of the 8-week MBSR course, and attending 8 sessions was associated with significant improvement in GAD-7 and PCS. This might suggest that survivors who are more motivated do benefit the most from such program.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to address the benefit of the MBSR intervention in Hispanic breast cancer survivors. In a randomized controlled trial that included breast cancer survivors with stages 0-III breast cancer who completed surgery, adjunctive radiation, and/or chemotherapy, MBSR was shown to reduce the symptoms of depression and anxiety and increase energy and physical functioning compared with participants who received “usual care”.³ Furthermore, Bower and colleagues have reported improvements in sleep, fatigue, and pro-inflammatory signaling in younger survivors of breast cancer.¹⁷ A similar standardized MBSR program was tested on Danish women who had been treated for stage I-III breast cancer¹⁸ and the results showed reduced levels of anxiety and depression at the 12-month follow-up. A similar study by Hoffman and colleagues¹⁹ reported improved mood, breast- and endocrine-related quality of life, and well-being with MBSR compared with standard care in women with stage 0-III breast cancer.

Several theories have been suggested to explain how MBSR reduces symptoms of depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors, one of which is that it provides supportive interaction between group members to practice meditation and apply mindfulness in daily situations.³ In addition, evidence is beginning to emerge that stress-reducing interventions such as MBSR may improve telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA), the markers for cellular aging, psychological stress, and disease risk.^20-24 Lengacher and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of MBSR on TL and TA in women with breast cancer, and suggested that MBSR increases telomere length and telomerase activity.²⁵ The 142 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer had completed adjuvant treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy at least 2 weeks before enrollment and within 2 years of completion of treatment with lumpectomy and/or mastectomy. They were randomly assigned to either a 6-week MBSR for breast cancer program or usual care.²⁵ Assessments of TA and TL were obtained along with psychological measurements at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the patients had completed the MBSR program. The mean age of the participants was 55.3 years; 72% were non-Hispanic white; 78% had stage I or II cancer; and 36% received both chemotherapy and radiation. In analyses adjusted for baseline TA and psychological status, TA increased steadily by about 17% over 12 weeks in the MBSR group, compared with about 3% (P < .01) in the control group. No difference was observed for TL (P = .92). The authors concluded that the data provide preliminary evidence that MBSR increases TA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from breast cancer patients and have implications for understanding how MBSR may extend cell longevity at the cellular level.

In another study among healthy volunteers who were randomly assigned to a 3-month meditation retreat or a control group, the 30 participants in the meditation group had higher TA compared with controls.²⁰ In a nonrandomized study among prostate cancer patients, TA increased and psychological stress decreased following a stress-reducing, lifestyle-modification program.²¹ The results of another intervention study among overweight women showed improvement in distress, eating behavior, and metabolic health in women participating in a MBSR program, all of which correlated with increases in TA.²² Most recently, researchers explored the impact on TA of a Kirtan Kriya yogic meditation intervention compared with exposure to relaxing music in 39 dementia family caregivers. The yogic-meditation intervention group had a 43% increase in TA after the 8-week intervention period compared with 3.7% the music group (P < .05).²³ Finally, among 22 patients with cervical cancer who were randomized to a psychosocial telephone counseling intervention,²⁴ investigators found a significant association between increased TL and changes in psychological distress.²⁰ Findings from other studies have assessed interventions to improve outcome of breast cancer survivors, such as the Taking CHARGE self-management intervention that is designed to facilitate the transition to survivorship after breast cancer treatment.⁸ Another intervention using home-based physical activity was shown in a randomized controlled trial to improve self-reported physical activity, body-mass index, and health-related QoL.⁹ Findings from another study suggested that a combined exercise and psychological counselling program might improve QoL more than a single entity intervention.²⁶ As noted previously, these studies did not focus on minority breast cancer survivors’ population, and it is not clear if they are generalizable to Hispanics.

In addition to the MBSR component, our program has also included one-on-one psychological assessment for long-term treatment complications and provided participants with appropriate care and follow-up plans, adding the benefits of self-awareness and self-attention for the survivors, which can effectively reduce the fear of recurrence.³ Furthermore, we included dietary consults based on general cancer survivor guidelines recommending a high fruit and vegetable diet that is low in fat and sugar.²⁷ Healthier dietary lifestyle has been reported to improve breast cancer prognosis, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular outcomes among Hispanic breast cancer survivors.²⁸

Our study has some limitations, including a relatively small sample size. It did not include an exercise program, which would have been helpful in addressing the issue of overweight and obesity we encountered in the most of the Hispanic breast cancer survivors (baseline average BMI, 31.32 kg/m²; obesity range, >30 kg/m²). Because of the small sample size and nonrandomized design of the study, it is hard to evaluate the confounding effect of time on intervention effect. However, a subgroup analysis by MBSR number of sessions showed that the survivors who completed the full course of MBSR sessions (8 sessions) achieved superior benefit, compared with those who did not complete the full course, which indicates that the intervention did weigh in regardless of time. Despite these limitations, the participants in this interventional program showed improved outcomes, including less anxiety and depression and improved MCS score of the SF-36. A larger and longer follow-up prospective, randomized study is needed to validate the findings of this study. Implementing cancer survivorship as an integral component of cancer care during and after treatment is essential to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors and empower them in their transition from cancer treatment to survivorship.

As we head into vacation season and the dog days of summer, let’s reflect for a few minutes on some of the very important advances we heard about at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. Nearly 40,000 individuals registered for the conference, an indication of both the interest and the excitement around the new agents and the emerging clinical trial data. Scientific sessions dedicated to the use of combination immunotherapy, the role of antibody drug conjugates, and targeting molecular aberrations with small molecules were among the most popular (p. e236).

As we head into vacation season and the dog days of summer, let’s reflect for a few minutes on some of the very important advances we heard about at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. Nearly 40,000 individuals registered for the conference, an indication of both the interest and the excitement around the new agents and the emerging clinical trial data. Scientific sessions dedicated to the use of combination immunotherapy, the role of antibody drug conjugates, and targeting molecular aberrations with small molecules were among the most popular (p. e236).

As we head into vacation season and the dog days of summer, let’s reflect for a few minutes on some of the very important advances we heard about at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. Nearly 40,000 individuals registered for the conference, an indication of both the interest and the excitement around the new agents and the emerging clinical trial data. Scientific sessions dedicated to the use of combination immunotherapy, the role of antibody drug conjugates, and targeting molecular aberrations with small molecules were among the most popular (p. e236).

The Food and Drug Administration has granted premarket clearance to the first 2D digital mammography system that allows patients to control the amount of compression applied to their own breasts before the mammogram x-ray is taken.

Senographe Pristina with Self-Compression uses a handheld wireless remote control that allows women to adjust the compression force after breast positioning and during a mammography exam. The technologist positions the patient and initiates compression, then guides the patient to gradually increase compression using the remote control until adequate compression is reached. The technologist checks the applied compression and breast positioning and makes the final decision on whether the compression is adequate or needs to be adjusted, according to the FDA’s Sept. 1 announcement.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted premarket clearance to the first 2D digital mammography system that allows patients to control the amount of compression applied to their own breasts before the mammogram x-ray is taken.

Senographe Pristina with Self-Compression uses a handheld wireless remote control that allows women to adjust the compression force after breast positioning and during a mammography exam. The technologist positions the patient and initiates compression, then guides the patient to gradually increase compression using the remote control until adequate compression is reached. The technologist checks the applied compression and breast positioning and makes the final decision on whether the compression is adequate or needs to be adjusted, according to the FDA’s Sept. 1 announcement.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted premarket clearance to the first 2D digital mammography system that allows patients to control the amount of compression applied to their own breasts before the mammogram x-ray is taken.

Senographe Pristina with Self-Compression uses a handheld wireless remote control that allows women to adjust the compression force after breast positioning and during a mammography exam. The technologist positions the patient and initiates compression, then guides the patient to gradually increase compression using the remote control until adequate compression is reached. The technologist checks the applied compression and breast positioning and makes the final decision on whether the compression is adequate or needs to be adjusted, according to the FDA’s Sept. 1 announcement.

[email protected]

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

Sexual function is a complex, multifaceted process mediated by neurologic functions, hormonal regulation, and psychological factors. What could possibly go wrong?

As it turns out, quite a lot. Female sexual dysfunction is a common, vastly undertreated sexual health problem that can have wide-reaching effects on a woman’s life. These effects may include impaired body image, self-confidence, and self-worth. Sexual dysfunction also can contribute to relationship dissatisfaction and leave one feeling less connected with her partner.^1,2 Studies have shown women with sexual dysfunction have higher health care expenditures³ and that depression and fatigue are common comorbidities, as is frequently seen in other chronic conditions such as diabetes and back pain.⁴

Understanding the pathogenesis of female sexual dysfunction helps to guide our approach to its management. Indeed, increased understanding of its pathology has helped to usher in new and emerging treatment options, as well as a personalized, biopsychosocial approach to its management.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

In this Update, I discuss the interplay of physiologic and psychological factors that affect female sexual function as well as the latest options for its management. I have also assembled a panel of experts to discuss 2 cases representative of sexual dysfunction that you may encounter in your clinical practice and how prescribing decisions are made for their management.

Read about factors that impact sexual function and agents to help manage dysfunction.

Multiple transmitters in the brain can increase or decrease sexual desire and function

Neurotransmitters involved in sexual excitation include brain dopamine, melanocortin, oxytocin, vasopressin, and norepinephrine, whereas brain opioids, serotonin, prolactin, and endocannabinoids function as sexual inhibitors. Inhibitory transmitters are activated normally during sexual refractoriness but also from primary aversion or secondary avoidance disorders.¹ Drugs or conditions that reduce brain dopamine levels, increase the action of brain serotonin, or enhance brain opioid pathways have been shown to inhibit sexual desire, while those that increase hypothalamic and mesolimbic dopamine or decrease serotonin release have been shown to stimulate sexual desire.¹ 

Estradiol and progesterone can impact sexual function and desire

In addition to the neurotransmitters, hormones are important modulators of female sexual function. Decreasing levels of circulating estrogen after menopause lead to physiologic, biologic, and clinical changes in the urogenital tissues, such as decreased elastin, thinning of the epithelium, reduced vaginal blood flow, diminished lubrication, and decreased flexibility and elasticity. These changes result in the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), which affects as many as half of all menopausal women.^5,6 In clinical trials, dyspareunia and vaginal dryness are the most bothersome GSM symptoms reported.⁷

The role of hormonal regulation in sexual dysfunction among premenopausal women is not yet fully understood, but we do know that estradiol has been shown to improve sexual desire, progesterone tends to dampen sexual desire, and that testosterone at physiological levels has been shown in most studies to have a neutral effect on sexual desire in a well-estrogenized patient.⁸

Related article:
Focus on treating genital atrophy symptoms

Experience and behavior modulate or reinforce sexual dysfunction

The most common psychological factors that trigger or amplify female sexual dysfunction are depression, anxiety, distraction, negative body image, sexual abuse, and emotional neglect.⁹ Contextual or sociocultural factors, such as relationship discord, life-stage stressors (the empty nest syndrome or anxiety and sleep deprivation from a new baby), as well as cultural or religious values that suppress sexuality, also should be considered.⁹ Experience-based neuroplasticity (changes in brain pathways that become solidified by negative or positive experiences) may elucidate how a multimodal approach, utilizing medical and psychological treatment, can be beneficial for patients, particularly those with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD).¹

New and emerging approaches to managing female sexual dysfunction

Three agents, one of which has been available for prescription for some time, one that is newly available, and one in the pipeline, are or may soon be in the gynecologist's armamentarium.

Flibanserin

Medications that target excitatory pathways or blunt inhibitory pathways are in development, and one, flibanserin (Addyi), has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the treatment of acquired, generalized HSDD in premenopausal women.^1,10 Flibanserin is a nonhormonal, centrally acting, postsynaptic serotonin 1A receptor agonist and a serotonin 2A receptor antagonist that is taken daily at bedtime (100 mg); several weeks are usually needed before any effects are noted.¹ It is not approved for postmenopausal women and has a boxed warning about the risks of hypotension and syncope; its use is contraindicated in women who drink alcohol, in those who have hepatic impairment, and with the use of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors.¹¹

Also keep in mind that flibanserin is only available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program, so clinicians who wish to prescribe it must enroll in and complete training to become certified providers.⁹

Related article:
What you need to know (and do) to prescribe the new drug flibanserin

Prasterone

Prasterone (Intrarosa), a once-daily intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) product, is a prohormone that increases local estrogen and testosterone and has the advantage of improved sexual function, desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, as well as pain at sexual activity.¹² It was approved by the FDA in November 2016 to treat moderate to severe dyspareunia and has been available for prescribing since July 2017. Its cost is comparable to topical estrogen products, with a $25 copay program.

Because prasterone is not an estrogen, it does not have the boxed warning that all estrogen products are mandated by the FDA to have. This may make it more acceptable to patients, who often decline to use an estrogen product after seeing the boxed warning on the package. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not have prasterone on its list of potentially hazardous drugs for the elderly. However, keep in mind that because its label is for dyspareunia and not specifically for GSM, CMS considers it a drug of choice--in other words, like sildenafil (Viagra), a lifestyle choice and not for treatment of a medical condition. As such, at the present time, Medicare does not cover it.

Bremelanotide

Late-stage trials of bremelanotide, a melanocortin receptor agonist, are underway. Its mechanism of action is somewhat like that of flibanserin in that both drugs increase dopamine and norepinephrine levels. The advantage of bremelanotide is that it is used as needed. It is dosed subcutaneously (1.75 mg) and it can be used as often as a woman would like to use it. The FDA is expected to consider it for approval in about a year. Unpublished data from poster sessions at recent meetings show that, in a phase 3 study of 1,247 premenopausal women with HSDD (who had already been screened for depression and were found to have a physiologic condition), improvements in desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm were shown with bremelanotide. About 18% of women stopped using the drug because of adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, flushing, or headache) versus 2% for placebo. Like flibanserin, it is expected to be approved for premenopausal women only. 

Read how 3 experts would manage differing GSM symptoms.

What would you prescribe for these patients? 

CASE Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in a 55-year-old woman

A 55-year-old widow is beginning a new relationship. She has not had partnered sexual activity for several years, but she recently has begun a relationship. She describes pain with attempted penetration with her new partner. Her last menstrual period was 3 years ago and she has experienced very minor menopausal symptoms, which are not bothersome. On examination, the vulva and vagina are pale, with thin epithelium and absent rugae. The tissue lacks elasticity. A virginal speculum is needed to visualize the cervix.

How would you go about deciding which of the many options for management of GSM you will recommend for this patient? What do you weigh as you consider DHEA versus estrogen and topical versus oral therapy?
 
JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD: Vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), part of GSM, is associated with postmenopausal estrogen deficiency and includes the signs and symptoms seen on this patient's physical exam: vaginal narrowing, pallor, loss of elasticity, as well as pain with intercourse.⁶ Estrogen therapy is the most effective treatment for vaginal atrophy.¹³ Since she does not have significant menopausal symptoms, low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations are effective and generally safe treatments for VVA; these include creams, tablets containing estradiol or conjugated equine estrogen (CEE), and a low-dose vaginal estradiol ring--all available at doses that result in minimal systemic absorption.

Choice is usually made based on patient desire and likely adherence. If the patient prefers nonestrogen therapies that improve VVA and have been approved for relief of dyspareunia in postmenopausal women, I would discuss with the patient the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene,¹⁴ and the new intravaginal DHEA suppositories, prasterone.¹⁵ Ospemifene is taken daily as an oral tablet, has a small risk of blood clots, and is my choice for women who do not need systemic hormone therapy and prefer to avoid vaginal therapy.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD: GSM is prevalent in menopausal women and, if not treated, causes progressive vaginal dryness and sexual discomfort. When the main indication for hormonal management in a menopausal woman is GSM (as opposed to treatment of vasomotor symptoms or prevention of osteoporosis), the treatment of choice is low-dose local vaginal estrogen, ospemifene, or prasterone (DHEA). Prasterone is a vaginally administered nonestrogen steroid that was approved by the FDA to treat dyspareunia associated with GSM. DHEA is an endogenous inactive steroid that is converted locally into androgens and estrogens; one vaginal insert is placed nightly.^16,17

This 55-year-old widow has not been sexually active for some time. The facts that attempted penetration was painful and only an ultrathin (virginal) speculum could be used for examination indicate that contraction of the pelvic floor muscles is likely present. Simply starting medical management may not lead to comfortable/successful penetrative sex for this woman. In addition to  medical management, she would likely benefit from referral for physical therapy. Using dilators and other strategies, along with the positive impact that medical management will have on the vaginal mucosa, a woman's physical therapist can work with this patient to help the pelvic floor muscles relax and facilitate comfortable penetrative sex.

James A. Simon, MD: With only minor vasomotor symptoms, I would assess the other potential benefits of a systemic therapy. These might include cardiovascular risk reduction (systemic estrogens or estrogens/progesterone in some), breast cancer risk reduction (some data suggesting ospemifene can accomplish this), osteoporosis prevention (systemic estrogens and estrogen/androgens), etc. If there is an option for a treatment to address more than one symptom, in this case GSM, assessing the risks/benefits of each of these therapies should be estimated for this specific patient.

If there are no systemic benefits to be had, then any of the local treatments should be helpful. As there are no head-to-head comparisons available, local estrogen cream, tablets, rings, local DHEA, or systemic ospemifene each should be considered possible treatments. I also feel this patient may benefit from supplementary self-dilation and/or physical therapy.

Related article:
2017 Update on menopause

 
CASE Dyspareunia and vasomotor symptoms in a 42-year-old breast cancer survivor

A 42-year-old woman with a BRCA1 mutation has undergone prophylactic mastectomies as well as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. She reports mild to moderate hot flashes and bothersome vaginal dryness and dyspareunia. Examination confirms GSM.

Would you advise systemic hormone therapy for this patient? What would your recommendation be for management of her GSM symptoms?

Dr. Simon: While one's gut reaction would be to avoid systemic estrogen therapy in a patient with a BRCA1 mutation, the scientific information confirming this fear is lacking.¹⁸ Such patients may benefit significantly from systemic estrogen therapy (reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline, etc.), and with both breasts and both ovaries removed, estrogen's breast cancer risks, if any in this population, are largely avoided. The patient also may benefit from additional local therapy with either estrogens or DHEA.

Dr. Kaunitz: Due to her high lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer, this woman has proceeded with risk-reducing breast and gynecologic surgery. As more BRCA mutation carriers are being identified and undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (usually with reconstruction) and salpingo-oophorectomy, clinicians and mutation carriers more frequently face decisions regarding use of systemic hormone therapy.

Mutation carriers who have undergone bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy experience a very low baseline future risk for breast cancer; accordingly, concerns regarding this disease should not prevent use of systemic hormone therapy. Furthermore, without hormone replacement, induced menopause in women this age is associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis, persistent vasomotor symptoms, cardiovascular disease, stroke, mood changes, dementia, Parkinson disease, and overall mortality. Recognizing the safety of estrogen therapy in this setting, this 42-year-old BRCA1 mutation carrier can initiate estrogen therapy. Standard dose estrogen therapy refers to oral estradiol 1.0 mg, conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg,or transdermal estradiol 0.05 mg. In younger women like this 42-year-old with surgically induced menopause, higher than standard replacement doses of estrogen are often appropriate.¹⁷

Due to concerns the hormone therapy might further increase future risk of breast cancer, some mutation carriers may delay or avoid risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, a potentially lifesaving surgery which reduces not only future risk of ovarian cancer but also future risk for breast cancer.

Among mutation carriers with intact breasts, several studies address risk of breast cancer with use of systemic hormone therapy. Although limited in numbers of participants and years of follow-up, in aggregate, these studies provide reassurance that short-term use of systemic hormone therapy does not increase breast cancer risk in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and intact breasts.¹⁹

Dr. Pinkerton: For this woman with early surgical menopause and hysterectomy, estrogen therapy could improve her vasomotor symptoms and decrease her risk of bone loss and GSM.¹⁷ In the Women's Health Initiative trial, there were 7 fewer breast cancers per 10,000 women-years in the estrogen-onlyarm.²⁰ Observational studies suggest that hormone therapy, when given to the average age of menopause, decreases the risks of heart disease, Parkinson disease, and dementia.²¹ Limited observational evidence suggests that hormone therapy use does not further increase risk of breast cancer in women following oophorectomy for BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation.²²

The absolute risks observed with hormone therapy tended to be small, especially in younger, healthy women. Systemic hormone therapy could treat her hot flashes and her GSM symptoms and potentially decrease health risks associated with premature estrogen deficiency. Nonestrogen therapies for hot flashes include low-dose antidepressants, gabapentin, and mind-body options, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnosis, but these would not decrease her health risks or treat her GSM.

If she only requests treatment of her GSM symptoms, she would be a candidate for low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy, given as a cream, tablet, or ring depending on her choice. I would not choose ospemifene as my first choice as she is having hot flashes, and there are no data yet on the drug's health benefits in early menopause. If she prefers nonestrogen vaginal therapy, the new intravaginal DHEA might be a good choice as both estrogen and testosterone are increased locally in the vagina while hormone levels remain in the postmenopausal range. There is no boxed warning on the patient insert, although safety in women with breast cancer or in those with elevated risk of breast cancer has not been tested.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

Sexual function is a complex, multifaceted process mediated by neurologic functions, hormonal regulation, and psychological factors. What could possibly go wrong?

As it turns out, quite a lot. Female sexual dysfunction is a common, vastly undertreated sexual health problem that can have wide-reaching effects on a woman’s life. These effects may include impaired body image, self-confidence, and self-worth. Sexual dysfunction also can contribute to relationship dissatisfaction and leave one feeling less connected with her partner.^1,2 Studies have shown women with sexual dysfunction have higher health care expenditures³ and that depression and fatigue are common comorbidities, as is frequently seen in other chronic conditions such as diabetes and back pain.⁴

Understanding the pathogenesis of female sexual dysfunction helps to guide our approach to its management. Indeed, increased understanding of its pathology has helped to usher in new and emerging treatment options, as well as a personalized, biopsychosocial approach to its management.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

In this Update, I discuss the interplay of physiologic and psychological factors that affect female sexual function as well as the latest options for its management. I have also assembled a panel of experts to discuss 2 cases representative of sexual dysfunction that you may encounter in your clinical practice and how prescribing decisions are made for their management.

Read about factors that impact sexual function and agents to help manage dysfunction.

Multiple transmitters in the brain can increase or decrease sexual desire and function

Neurotransmitters involved in sexual excitation include brain dopamine, melanocortin, oxytocin, vasopressin, and norepinephrine, whereas brain opioids, serotonin, prolactin, and endocannabinoids function as sexual inhibitors. Inhibitory transmitters are activated normally during sexual refractoriness but also from primary aversion or secondary avoidance disorders.¹ Drugs or conditions that reduce brain dopamine levels, increase the action of brain serotonin, or enhance brain opioid pathways have been shown to inhibit sexual desire, while those that increase hypothalamic and mesolimbic dopamine or decrease serotonin release have been shown to stimulate sexual desire.¹ 

Estradiol and progesterone can impact sexual function and desire

In addition to the neurotransmitters, hormones are important modulators of female sexual function. Decreasing levels of circulating estrogen after menopause lead to physiologic, biologic, and clinical changes in the urogenital tissues, such as decreased elastin, thinning of the epithelium, reduced vaginal blood flow, diminished lubrication, and decreased flexibility and elasticity. These changes result in the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), which affects as many as half of all menopausal women.^5,6 In clinical trials, dyspareunia and vaginal dryness are the most bothersome GSM symptoms reported.⁷

The role of hormonal regulation in sexual dysfunction among premenopausal women is not yet fully understood, but we do know that estradiol has been shown to improve sexual desire, progesterone tends to dampen sexual desire, and that testosterone at physiological levels has been shown in most studies to have a neutral effect on sexual desire in a well-estrogenized patient.⁸

Related article:
Focus on treating genital atrophy symptoms

Experience and behavior modulate or reinforce sexual dysfunction

The most common psychological factors that trigger or amplify female sexual dysfunction are depression, anxiety, distraction, negative body image, sexual abuse, and emotional neglect.⁹ Contextual or sociocultural factors, such as relationship discord, life-stage stressors (the empty nest syndrome or anxiety and sleep deprivation from a new baby), as well as cultural or religious values that suppress sexuality, also should be considered.⁹ Experience-based neuroplasticity (changes in brain pathways that become solidified by negative or positive experiences) may elucidate how a multimodal approach, utilizing medical and psychological treatment, can be beneficial for patients, particularly those with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD).¹

New and emerging approaches to managing female sexual dysfunction

Three agents, one of which has been available for prescription for some time, one that is newly available, and one in the pipeline, are or may soon be in the gynecologist's armamentarium.

Flibanserin

Medications that target excitatory pathways or blunt inhibitory pathways are in development, and one, flibanserin (Addyi), has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the treatment of acquired, generalized HSDD in premenopausal women.^1,10 Flibanserin is a nonhormonal, centrally acting, postsynaptic serotonin 1A receptor agonist and a serotonin 2A receptor antagonist that is taken daily at bedtime (100 mg); several weeks are usually needed before any effects are noted.¹ It is not approved for postmenopausal women and has a boxed warning about the risks of hypotension and syncope; its use is contraindicated in women who drink alcohol, in those who have hepatic impairment, and with the use of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors.¹¹

Also keep in mind that flibanserin is only available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program, so clinicians who wish to prescribe it must enroll in and complete training to become certified providers.⁹

Related article:
What you need to know (and do) to prescribe the new drug flibanserin

Prasterone

Prasterone (Intrarosa), a once-daily intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) product, is a prohormone that increases local estrogen and testosterone and has the advantage of improved sexual function, desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, as well as pain at sexual activity.¹² It was approved by the FDA in November 2016 to treat moderate to severe dyspareunia and has been available for prescribing since July 2017. Its cost is comparable to topical estrogen products, with a $25 copay program.

Because prasterone is not an estrogen, it does not have the boxed warning that all estrogen products are mandated by the FDA to have. This may make it more acceptable to patients, who often decline to use an estrogen product after seeing the boxed warning on the package. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not have prasterone on its list of potentially hazardous drugs for the elderly. However, keep in mind that because its label is for dyspareunia and not specifically for GSM, CMS considers it a drug of choice--in other words, like sildenafil (Viagra), a lifestyle choice and not for treatment of a medical condition. As such, at the present time, Medicare does not cover it.

Bremelanotide

Late-stage trials of bremelanotide, a melanocortin receptor agonist, are underway. Its mechanism of action is somewhat like that of flibanserin in that both drugs increase dopamine and norepinephrine levels. The advantage of bremelanotide is that it is used as needed. It is dosed subcutaneously (1.75 mg) and it can be used as often as a woman would like to use it. The FDA is expected to consider it for approval in about a year. Unpublished data from poster sessions at recent meetings show that, in a phase 3 study of 1,247 premenopausal women with HSDD (who had already been screened for depression and were found to have a physiologic condition), improvements in desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm were shown with bremelanotide. About 18% of women stopped using the drug because of adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, flushing, or headache) versus 2% for placebo. Like flibanserin, it is expected to be approved for premenopausal women only. 

Read how 3 experts would manage differing GSM symptoms.

What would you prescribe for these patients? 

CASE Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in a 55-year-old woman

A 55-year-old widow is beginning a new relationship. She has not had partnered sexual activity for several years, but she recently has begun a relationship. She describes pain with attempted penetration with her new partner. Her last menstrual period was 3 years ago and she has experienced very minor menopausal symptoms, which are not bothersome. On examination, the vulva and vagina are pale, with thin epithelium and absent rugae. The tissue lacks elasticity. A virginal speculum is needed to visualize the cervix.

How would you go about deciding which of the many options for management of GSM you will recommend for this patient? What do you weigh as you consider DHEA versus estrogen and topical versus oral therapy?
 
JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD: Vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), part of GSM, is associated with postmenopausal estrogen deficiency and includes the signs and symptoms seen on this patient's physical exam: vaginal narrowing, pallor, loss of elasticity, as well as pain with intercourse.⁶ Estrogen therapy is the most effective treatment for vaginal atrophy.¹³ Since she does not have significant menopausal symptoms, low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations are effective and generally safe treatments for VVA; these include creams, tablets containing estradiol or conjugated equine estrogen (CEE), and a low-dose vaginal estradiol ring--all available at doses that result in minimal systemic absorption.

Choice is usually made based on patient desire and likely adherence. If the patient prefers nonestrogen therapies that improve VVA and have been approved for relief of dyspareunia in postmenopausal women, I would discuss with the patient the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene,¹⁴ and the new intravaginal DHEA suppositories, prasterone.¹⁵ Ospemifene is taken daily as an oral tablet, has a small risk of blood clots, and is my choice for women who do not need systemic hormone therapy and prefer to avoid vaginal therapy.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD: GSM is prevalent in menopausal women and, if not treated, causes progressive vaginal dryness and sexual discomfort. When the main indication for hormonal management in a menopausal woman is GSM (as opposed to treatment of vasomotor symptoms or prevention of osteoporosis), the treatment of choice is low-dose local vaginal estrogen, ospemifene, or prasterone (DHEA). Prasterone is a vaginally administered nonestrogen steroid that was approved by the FDA to treat dyspareunia associated with GSM. DHEA is an endogenous inactive steroid that is converted locally into androgens and estrogens; one vaginal insert is placed nightly.^16,17

This 55-year-old widow has not been sexually active for some time. The facts that attempted penetration was painful and only an ultrathin (virginal) speculum could be used for examination indicate that contraction of the pelvic floor muscles is likely present. Simply starting medical management may not lead to comfortable/successful penetrative sex for this woman. In addition to  medical management, she would likely benefit from referral for physical therapy. Using dilators and other strategies, along with the positive impact that medical management will have on the vaginal mucosa, a woman's physical therapist can work with this patient to help the pelvic floor muscles relax and facilitate comfortable penetrative sex.

James A. Simon, MD: With only minor vasomotor symptoms, I would assess the other potential benefits of a systemic therapy. These might include cardiovascular risk reduction (systemic estrogens or estrogens/progesterone in some), breast cancer risk reduction (some data suggesting ospemifene can accomplish this), osteoporosis prevention (systemic estrogens and estrogen/androgens), etc. If there is an option for a treatment to address more than one symptom, in this case GSM, assessing the risks/benefits of each of these therapies should be estimated for this specific patient.

If there are no systemic benefits to be had, then any of the local treatments should be helpful. As there are no head-to-head comparisons available, local estrogen cream, tablets, rings, local DHEA, or systemic ospemifene each should be considered possible treatments. I also feel this patient may benefit from supplementary self-dilation and/or physical therapy.

Related article:
2017 Update on menopause

 
CASE Dyspareunia and vasomotor symptoms in a 42-year-old breast cancer survivor

A 42-year-old woman with a BRCA1 mutation has undergone prophylactic mastectomies as well as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. She reports mild to moderate hot flashes and bothersome vaginal dryness and dyspareunia. Examination confirms GSM.

Would you advise systemic hormone therapy for this patient? What would your recommendation be for management of her GSM symptoms?

Dr. Simon: While one's gut reaction would be to avoid systemic estrogen therapy in a patient with a BRCA1 mutation, the scientific information confirming this fear is lacking.¹⁸ Such patients may benefit significantly from systemic estrogen therapy (reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline, etc.), and with both breasts and both ovaries removed, estrogen's breast cancer risks, if any in this population, are largely avoided. The patient also may benefit from additional local therapy with either estrogens or DHEA.

Dr. Kaunitz: Due to her high lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer, this woman has proceeded with risk-reducing breast and gynecologic surgery. As more BRCA mutation carriers are being identified and undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (usually with reconstruction) and salpingo-oophorectomy, clinicians and mutation carriers more frequently face decisions regarding use of systemic hormone therapy.

Mutation carriers who have undergone bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy experience a very low baseline future risk for breast cancer; accordingly, concerns regarding this disease should not prevent use of systemic hormone therapy. Furthermore, without hormone replacement, induced menopause in women this age is associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis, persistent vasomotor symptoms, cardiovascular disease, stroke, mood changes, dementia, Parkinson disease, and overall mortality. Recognizing the safety of estrogen therapy in this setting, this 42-year-old BRCA1 mutation carrier can initiate estrogen therapy. Standard dose estrogen therapy refers to oral estradiol 1.0 mg, conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg,or transdermal estradiol 0.05 mg. In younger women like this 42-year-old with surgically induced menopause, higher than standard replacement doses of estrogen are often appropriate.¹⁷

Due to concerns the hormone therapy might further increase future risk of breast cancer, some mutation carriers may delay or avoid risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, a potentially lifesaving surgery which reduces not only future risk of ovarian cancer but also future risk for breast cancer.

Among mutation carriers with intact breasts, several studies address risk of breast cancer with use of systemic hormone therapy. Although limited in numbers of participants and years of follow-up, in aggregate, these studies provide reassurance that short-term use of systemic hormone therapy does not increase breast cancer risk in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and intact breasts.¹⁹

Dr. Pinkerton: For this woman with early surgical menopause and hysterectomy, estrogen therapy could improve her vasomotor symptoms and decrease her risk of bone loss and GSM.¹⁷ In the Women's Health Initiative trial, there were 7 fewer breast cancers per 10,000 women-years in the estrogen-onlyarm.²⁰ Observational studies suggest that hormone therapy, when given to the average age of menopause, decreases the risks of heart disease, Parkinson disease, and dementia.²¹ Limited observational evidence suggests that hormone therapy use does not further increase risk of breast cancer in women following oophorectomy for BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation.²²

The absolute risks observed with hormone therapy tended to be small, especially in younger, healthy women. Systemic hormone therapy could treat her hot flashes and her GSM symptoms and potentially decrease health risks associated with premature estrogen deficiency. Nonestrogen therapies for hot flashes include low-dose antidepressants, gabapentin, and mind-body options, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnosis, but these would not decrease her health risks or treat her GSM.

If she only requests treatment of her GSM symptoms, she would be a candidate for low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy, given as a cream, tablet, or ring depending on her choice. I would not choose ospemifene as my first choice as she is having hot flashes, and there are no data yet on the drug's health benefits in early menopause. If she prefers nonestrogen vaginal therapy, the new intravaginal DHEA might be a good choice as both estrogen and testosterone are increased locally in the vagina while hormone levels remain in the postmenopausal range. There is no boxed warning on the patient insert, although safety in women with breast cancer or in those with elevated risk of breast cancer has not been tested.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

Sexual function is a complex, multifaceted process mediated by neurologic functions, hormonal regulation, and psychological factors. What could possibly go wrong?

As it turns out, quite a lot. Female sexual dysfunction is a common, vastly undertreated sexual health problem that can have wide-reaching effects on a woman’s life. These effects may include impaired body image, self-confidence, and self-worth. Sexual dysfunction also can contribute to relationship dissatisfaction and leave one feeling less connected with her partner.^1,2 Studies have shown women with sexual dysfunction have higher health care expenditures³ and that depression and fatigue are common comorbidities, as is frequently seen in other chronic conditions such as diabetes and back pain.⁴

Understanding the pathogenesis of female sexual dysfunction helps to guide our approach to its management. Indeed, increased understanding of its pathology has helped to usher in new and emerging treatment options, as well as a personalized, biopsychosocial approach to its management.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

In this Update, I discuss the interplay of physiologic and psychological factors that affect female sexual function as well as the latest options for its management. I have also assembled a panel of experts to discuss 2 cases representative of sexual dysfunction that you may encounter in your clinical practice and how prescribing decisions are made for their management.

Read about factors that impact sexual function and agents to help manage dysfunction.

Multiple transmitters in the brain can increase or decrease sexual desire and function

Neurotransmitters involved in sexual excitation include brain dopamine, melanocortin, oxytocin, vasopressin, and norepinephrine, whereas brain opioids, serotonin, prolactin, and endocannabinoids function as sexual inhibitors. Inhibitory transmitters are activated normally during sexual refractoriness but also from primary aversion or secondary avoidance disorders.¹ Drugs or conditions that reduce brain dopamine levels, increase the action of brain serotonin, or enhance brain opioid pathways have been shown to inhibit sexual desire, while those that increase hypothalamic and mesolimbic dopamine or decrease serotonin release have been shown to stimulate sexual desire.¹ 

Estradiol and progesterone can impact sexual function and desire

In addition to the neurotransmitters, hormones are important modulators of female sexual function. Decreasing levels of circulating estrogen after menopause lead to physiologic, biologic, and clinical changes in the urogenital tissues, such as decreased elastin, thinning of the epithelium, reduced vaginal blood flow, diminished lubrication, and decreased flexibility and elasticity. These changes result in the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), which affects as many as half of all menopausal women.^5,6 In clinical trials, dyspareunia and vaginal dryness are the most bothersome GSM symptoms reported.⁷

The role of hormonal regulation in sexual dysfunction among premenopausal women is not yet fully understood, but we do know that estradiol has been shown to improve sexual desire, progesterone tends to dampen sexual desire, and that testosterone at physiological levels has been shown in most studies to have a neutral effect on sexual desire in a well-estrogenized patient.⁸

Related article:
Focus on treating genital atrophy symptoms

Experience and behavior modulate or reinforce sexual dysfunction

The most common psychological factors that trigger or amplify female sexual dysfunction are depression, anxiety, distraction, negative body image, sexual abuse, and emotional neglect.⁹ Contextual or sociocultural factors, such as relationship discord, life-stage stressors (the empty nest syndrome or anxiety and sleep deprivation from a new baby), as well as cultural or religious values that suppress sexuality, also should be considered.⁹ Experience-based neuroplasticity (changes in brain pathways that become solidified by negative or positive experiences) may elucidate how a multimodal approach, utilizing medical and psychological treatment, can be beneficial for patients, particularly those with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD).¹

New and emerging approaches to managing female sexual dysfunction

Three agents, one of which has been available for prescription for some time, one that is newly available, and one in the pipeline, are or may soon be in the gynecologist's armamentarium.

Flibanserin

Medications that target excitatory pathways or blunt inhibitory pathways are in development, and one, flibanserin (Addyi), has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the treatment of acquired, generalized HSDD in premenopausal women.^1,10 Flibanserin is a nonhormonal, centrally acting, postsynaptic serotonin 1A receptor agonist and a serotonin 2A receptor antagonist that is taken daily at bedtime (100 mg); several weeks are usually needed before any effects are noted.¹ It is not approved for postmenopausal women and has a boxed warning about the risks of hypotension and syncope; its use is contraindicated in women who drink alcohol, in those who have hepatic impairment, and with the use of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors.¹¹

Also keep in mind that flibanserin is only available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program, so clinicians who wish to prescribe it must enroll in and complete training to become certified providers.⁹

Related article:
What you need to know (and do) to prescribe the new drug flibanserin

Prasterone

Prasterone (Intrarosa), a once-daily intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) product, is a prohormone that increases local estrogen and testosterone and has the advantage of improved sexual function, desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, as well as pain at sexual activity.¹² It was approved by the FDA in November 2016 to treat moderate to severe dyspareunia and has been available for prescribing since July 2017. Its cost is comparable to topical estrogen products, with a $25 copay program.

Because prasterone is not an estrogen, it does not have the boxed warning that all estrogen products are mandated by the FDA to have. This may make it more acceptable to patients, who often decline to use an estrogen product after seeing the boxed warning on the package. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not have prasterone on its list of potentially hazardous drugs for the elderly. However, keep in mind that because its label is for dyspareunia and not specifically for GSM, CMS considers it a drug of choice--in other words, like sildenafil (Viagra), a lifestyle choice and not for treatment of a medical condition. As such, at the present time, Medicare does not cover it.

Bremelanotide

Late-stage trials of bremelanotide, a melanocortin receptor agonist, are underway. Its mechanism of action is somewhat like that of flibanserin in that both drugs increase dopamine and norepinephrine levels. The advantage of bremelanotide is that it is used as needed. It is dosed subcutaneously (1.75 mg) and it can be used as often as a woman would like to use it. The FDA is expected to consider it for approval in about a year. Unpublished data from poster sessions at recent meetings show that, in a phase 3 study of 1,247 premenopausal women with HSDD (who had already been screened for depression and were found to have a physiologic condition), improvements in desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm were shown with bremelanotide. About 18% of women stopped using the drug because of adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, flushing, or headache) versus 2% for placebo. Like flibanserin, it is expected to be approved for premenopausal women only. 

Read how 3 experts would manage differing GSM symptoms.

What would you prescribe for these patients? 

CASE Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in a 55-year-old woman

A 55-year-old widow is beginning a new relationship. She has not had partnered sexual activity for several years, but she recently has begun a relationship. She describes pain with attempted penetration with her new partner. Her last menstrual period was 3 years ago and she has experienced very minor menopausal symptoms, which are not bothersome. On examination, the vulva and vagina are pale, with thin epithelium and absent rugae. The tissue lacks elasticity. A virginal speculum is needed to visualize the cervix.

How would you go about deciding which of the many options for management of GSM you will recommend for this patient? What do you weigh as you consider DHEA versus estrogen and topical versus oral therapy?
 
JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD: Vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), part of GSM, is associated with postmenopausal estrogen deficiency and includes the signs and symptoms seen on this patient's physical exam: vaginal narrowing, pallor, loss of elasticity, as well as pain with intercourse.⁶ Estrogen therapy is the most effective treatment for vaginal atrophy.¹³ Since she does not have significant menopausal symptoms, low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations are effective and generally safe treatments for VVA; these include creams, tablets containing estradiol or conjugated equine estrogen (CEE), and a low-dose vaginal estradiol ring--all available at doses that result in minimal systemic absorption.

Choice is usually made based on patient desire and likely adherence. If the patient prefers nonestrogen therapies that improve VVA and have been approved for relief of dyspareunia in postmenopausal women, I would discuss with the patient the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene,¹⁴ and the new intravaginal DHEA suppositories, prasterone.¹⁵ Ospemifene is taken daily as an oral tablet, has a small risk of blood clots, and is my choice for women who do not need systemic hormone therapy and prefer to avoid vaginal therapy.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD: GSM is prevalent in menopausal women and, if not treated, causes progressive vaginal dryness and sexual discomfort. When the main indication for hormonal management in a menopausal woman is GSM (as opposed to treatment of vasomotor symptoms or prevention of osteoporosis), the treatment of choice is low-dose local vaginal estrogen, ospemifene, or prasterone (DHEA). Prasterone is a vaginally administered nonestrogen steroid that was approved by the FDA to treat dyspareunia associated with GSM. DHEA is an endogenous inactive steroid that is converted locally into androgens and estrogens; one vaginal insert is placed nightly.^16,17

This 55-year-old widow has not been sexually active for some time. The facts that attempted penetration was painful and only an ultrathin (virginal) speculum could be used for examination indicate that contraction of the pelvic floor muscles is likely present. Simply starting medical management may not lead to comfortable/successful penetrative sex for this woman. In addition to  medical management, she would likely benefit from referral for physical therapy. Using dilators and other strategies, along with the positive impact that medical management will have on the vaginal mucosa, a woman's physical therapist can work with this patient to help the pelvic floor muscles relax and facilitate comfortable penetrative sex.

James A. Simon, MD: With only minor vasomotor symptoms, I would assess the other potential benefits of a systemic therapy. These might include cardiovascular risk reduction (systemic estrogens or estrogens/progesterone in some), breast cancer risk reduction (some data suggesting ospemifene can accomplish this), osteoporosis prevention (systemic estrogens and estrogen/androgens), etc. If there is an option for a treatment to address more than one symptom, in this case GSM, assessing the risks/benefits of each of these therapies should be estimated for this specific patient.

If there are no systemic benefits to be had, then any of the local treatments should be helpful. As there are no head-to-head comparisons available, local estrogen cream, tablets, rings, local DHEA, or systemic ospemifene each should be considered possible treatments. I also feel this patient may benefit from supplementary self-dilation and/or physical therapy.

Related article:
2017 Update on menopause

 
CASE Dyspareunia and vasomotor symptoms in a 42-year-old breast cancer survivor

A 42-year-old woman with a BRCA1 mutation has undergone prophylactic mastectomies as well as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. She reports mild to moderate hot flashes and bothersome vaginal dryness and dyspareunia. Examination confirms GSM.

Would you advise systemic hormone therapy for this patient? What would your recommendation be for management of her GSM symptoms?

Dr. Simon: While one's gut reaction would be to avoid systemic estrogen therapy in a patient with a BRCA1 mutation, the scientific information confirming this fear is lacking.¹⁸ Such patients may benefit significantly from systemic estrogen therapy (reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline, etc.), and with both breasts and both ovaries removed, estrogen's breast cancer risks, if any in this population, are largely avoided. The patient also may benefit from additional local therapy with either estrogens or DHEA.

Dr. Kaunitz: Due to her high lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer, this woman has proceeded with risk-reducing breast and gynecologic surgery. As more BRCA mutation carriers are being identified and undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (usually with reconstruction) and salpingo-oophorectomy, clinicians and mutation carriers more frequently face decisions regarding use of systemic hormone therapy.

Mutation carriers who have undergone bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy experience a very low baseline future risk for breast cancer; accordingly, concerns regarding this disease should not prevent use of systemic hormone therapy. Furthermore, without hormone replacement, induced menopause in women this age is associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis, persistent vasomotor symptoms, cardiovascular disease, stroke, mood changes, dementia, Parkinson disease, and overall mortality. Recognizing the safety of estrogen therapy in this setting, this 42-year-old BRCA1 mutation carrier can initiate estrogen therapy. Standard dose estrogen therapy refers to oral estradiol 1.0 mg, conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg,or transdermal estradiol 0.05 mg. In younger women like this 42-year-old with surgically induced menopause, higher than standard replacement doses of estrogen are often appropriate.¹⁷

Due to concerns the hormone therapy might further increase future risk of breast cancer, some mutation carriers may delay or avoid risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, a potentially lifesaving surgery which reduces not only future risk of ovarian cancer but also future risk for breast cancer.

Among mutation carriers with intact breasts, several studies address risk of breast cancer with use of systemic hormone therapy. Although limited in numbers of participants and years of follow-up, in aggregate, these studies provide reassurance that short-term use of systemic hormone therapy does not increase breast cancer risk in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and intact breasts.¹⁹

Dr. Pinkerton: For this woman with early surgical menopause and hysterectomy, estrogen therapy could improve her vasomotor symptoms and decrease her risk of bone loss and GSM.¹⁷ In the Women's Health Initiative trial, there were 7 fewer breast cancers per 10,000 women-years in the estrogen-onlyarm.²⁰ Observational studies suggest that hormone therapy, when given to the average age of menopause, decreases the risks of heart disease, Parkinson disease, and dementia.²¹ Limited observational evidence suggests that hormone therapy use does not further increase risk of breast cancer in women following oophorectomy for BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation.²²

The absolute risks observed with hormone therapy tended to be small, especially in younger, healthy women. Systemic hormone therapy could treat her hot flashes and her GSM symptoms and potentially decrease health risks associated with premature estrogen deficiency. Nonestrogen therapies for hot flashes include low-dose antidepressants, gabapentin, and mind-body options, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnosis, but these would not decrease her health risks or treat her GSM.

If she only requests treatment of her GSM symptoms, she would be a candidate for low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy, given as a cream, tablet, or ring depending on her choice. I would not choose ospemifene as my first choice as she is having hot flashes, and there are no data yet on the drug's health benefits in early menopause. If she prefers nonestrogen vaginal therapy, the new intravaginal DHEA might be a good choice as both estrogen and testosterone are increased locally in the vagina while hormone levels remain in the postmenopausal range. There is no boxed warning on the patient insert, although safety in women with breast cancer or in those with elevated risk of breast cancer has not been tested.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Lifestyle modification, rather than hormone therapy, should form the basis for managing estrogen-depletion symptoms and associated clinical problems in breast cancer survivors, according to a review of available evidence.

The review, conducted by the writing group for the Endocrine Society’s guidelines on management of menopausal symptoms, was prompted by the paucity of both randomized controlled trials in breast cancer survivors with estrogen deficiency issues and guidelines that sufficiently focus on treatment of this subgroup of women.

[email protected]

Lifestyle modification, rather than hormone therapy, should form the basis for managing estrogen-depletion symptoms and associated clinical problems in breast cancer survivors, according to a review of available evidence.

The review, conducted by the writing group for the Endocrine Society’s guidelines on management of menopausal symptoms, was prompted by the paucity of both randomized controlled trials in breast cancer survivors with estrogen deficiency issues and guidelines that sufficiently focus on treatment of this subgroup of women.

[email protected]

Lifestyle modification, rather than hormone therapy, should form the basis for managing estrogen-depletion symptoms and associated clinical problems in breast cancer survivors, according to a review of available evidence.

The review, conducted by the writing group for the Endocrine Society’s guidelines on management of menopausal symptoms, was prompted by the paucity of both randomized controlled trials in breast cancer survivors with estrogen deficiency issues and guidelines that sufficiently focus on treatment of this subgroup of women.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved fulvestrant (Faslodex) as monotherapy for women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) advanced breast cancer who are postmenopausal and previously untreated.

Approval was based on improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 3 FALCON trial of 462 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer who had not previously received hormonal therapy, drug maker AstraZeneca said in a press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved fulvestrant (Faslodex) as monotherapy for women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) advanced breast cancer who are postmenopausal and previously untreated.

Approval was based on improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 3 FALCON trial of 462 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer who had not previously received hormonal therapy, drug maker AstraZeneca said in a press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved fulvestrant (Faslodex) as monotherapy for women with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) advanced breast cancer who are postmenopausal and previously untreated.

Approval was based on improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 3 FALCON trial of 462 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2– metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer who had not previously received hormonal therapy, drug maker AstraZeneca said in a press release.

[email protected]

Annual mammograms starting at age 40 and continuing until age 84 will achieve the greatest reductions in breast cancer deaths, according to a modeling study published in Cancer.

Researchers used Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer models to compare three current mammography-based screening approaches for women at average risk of breast cancer. The first approach is for annual screening from ages 40-84 years, the second is a hybrid approach with annual screening from ages 45 to 54 then biennial screening from ages 55 to 79, and the third approach involves biennial mammograms from ages 50 to 74.

The modeling suggested that the largest mean reduction in mortality – 36.9% – was associated with annual screening starting at age 40. The second largest reduction of 30.8% occurred with the hybrid screening approach starting at age 45, while the smallest reduction in mortality – 23.2% – occurred with biennial screening starting at age 50 (Cancer 2017 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30842).

Annual screening also averted the most deaths from breast cancer – 11.9 per 1,000 women screened – and gained the most life-years (189 per 1,000 women screened, compared with 149 for the hybrid approach and 110 for biennial screening), reported Elizabeth K. Arleo, MD, of Weill Cornell Imaging at New York–Presbyterian, New York, and her coauthors.

copyright John Foxx/Thinkstock

Annual mammograms starting at age 40 and continuing until age 84 will achieve the greatest reductions in breast cancer deaths, according to a modeling study published in Cancer.

Researchers used Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer models to compare three current mammography-based screening approaches for women at average risk of breast cancer. The first approach is for annual screening from ages 40-84 years, the second is a hybrid approach with annual screening from ages 45 to 54 then biennial screening from ages 55 to 79, and the third approach involves biennial mammograms from ages 50 to 74.

The modeling suggested that the largest mean reduction in mortality – 36.9% – was associated with annual screening starting at age 40. The second largest reduction of 30.8% occurred with the hybrid screening approach starting at age 45, while the smallest reduction in mortality – 23.2% – occurred with biennial screening starting at age 50 (Cancer 2017 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30842).

Annual screening also averted the most deaths from breast cancer – 11.9 per 1,000 women screened – and gained the most life-years (189 per 1,000 women screened, compared with 149 for the hybrid approach and 110 for biennial screening), reported Elizabeth K. Arleo, MD, of Weill Cornell Imaging at New York–Presbyterian, New York, and her coauthors.

copyright John Foxx/Thinkstock

Annual mammograms starting at age 40 and continuing until age 84 will achieve the greatest reductions in breast cancer deaths, according to a modeling study published in Cancer.

Researchers used Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer models to compare three current mammography-based screening approaches for women at average risk of breast cancer. The first approach is for annual screening from ages 40-84 years, the second is a hybrid approach with annual screening from ages 45 to 54 then biennial screening from ages 55 to 79, and the third approach involves biennial mammograms from ages 50 to 74.

The modeling suggested that the largest mean reduction in mortality – 36.9% – was associated with annual screening starting at age 40. The second largest reduction of 30.8% occurred with the hybrid screening approach starting at age 45, while the smallest reduction in mortality – 23.2% – occurred with biennial screening starting at age 50 (Cancer 2017 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30842).

Annual screening also averted the most deaths from breast cancer – 11.9 per 1,000 women screened – and gained the most life-years (189 per 1,000 women screened, compared with 149 for the hybrid approach and 110 for biennial screening), reported Elizabeth K. Arleo, MD, of Weill Cornell Imaging at New York–Presbyterian, New York, and her coauthors.

copyright John Foxx/Thinkstock