Associations between Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Colorectal, Lung, or Melanoma Cancer Recurrence and Mortality: A Narrative Review.

Objective: to develop eligibility criteria for use in non-gynecological cancer patients. Methods: We searched all the articles published in peer-reviewed journals up to March 2021. We utilized the PICOS standards and the following selection criteria: menopausal women with a history of non-gynecological and non-breast cancer who underwent hormone replacement therapy (HRT) using various preparations (oestrogens alone or in combination with a progestogen, tibolone, or tissue selective oestrogen complex) and different routes of administration (including oral, transdermal, vaginal, or intra-nasal). We focused on randomized controlled trials as well as relevant extension studies or follow-up reports, specifically examining recurrence and mortality outcomes. Results: Women colorectal cancer survivors who use MHT have a lower risk of death from any cause than those survivors who do not use MHT. Women who are skin melanoma survivors using MHT have a longer survival rate than non-MHT survivors. There is no evidence that women lung cancer survivors who use MHT have a different survival rate than those who do not use MHT. Conclusions: MHT is safe for women who have a history of colorectal, lung, or skin melanoma cancers.

Eligibility criteria for Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT): a position statement from a consortium of scientific societies for the use of MHT in women with medical conditions. MHT Eligibility Criteria Group.

This project aims to develop eligibility criteria for menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). The tool should be similar to those already established for contraception A consortium of scientific societies coordinated by the Spanish Menopause Society met to formulate recommendations for the use of MHT by women with medical conditions based on the best available evidence. The project was developed in two phases. As a first step, we conducted 14 systematic reviews and 32 metanalyses on the safety of MHT (in nine areas: age, time of menopause onset, treatment duration, women with thrombotic risk, women with a personal history of cardiovascular disease, women with metabolic syndrome, women with gastrointestinal diseases, survivors of breast cancer or of other cancers, and women who smoke) and on the most relevant pharmacological interactions with MHT. These systematic reviews and metanalyses helped inform a structured process in which a panel of experts defined the eligibility criteria according to a specific framework, which facilitated the discussion and development process. To unify the proposal, the following eligibility criteria have been defined in accordance with the WHO international nomenclature for the different alternatives for MHT (category 1, no restriction on the use of MHT; category 2, the benefits outweigh the risks; category 3, the risks generally outweigh the benefits; category 4, MHT should not be used). Quality was classified as high, moderate, low or very low, based on several factors (including risk of bias, inaccuracy, inconsistency, lack of directionality and publication bias). When no direct evidence was identified, but plausibility, clinical experience or indirect evidence were available, "Expert opinion" was categorized. For the first time, a set of eligibility criteria, based on clinical evidence and developed according to the most rigorous methodological tools, has been defined. This will provide health professionals with a powerful decision-making tool that can be used to manage menopausal symptoms.

Women's knowledge about the genitourinary syndrome of menopause: adherence to its treatments in the COVID-19 era in a sample of them: COMEM-GSM study.

OBJECTIVE: To study knowledge regarding genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) and the treatments for it and to analyze treatment adherence during the COVID-19 confinement. METHODS: Multi-center observational study including women between 35 and 75 years. An extension study of treatment adherence was conducted during the coronavirus pandemic between March and April 2020. RESULTS: A sample of 2355 women were included. Vaginal dryness was the most frequently identified symptom (74.3%). Lubricants were the best-known treatments (69.6%), followed by local estrogens (25.7%); 66% of the women did not speak to their gynecologist about sexuality. Comparative analyses were conducted according to age, menopausal status, type of menopause, place of residence, type of health care received and level of education. During the coronavirus confinement period, adherence to treatments for vulvovaginal atrophy was poor in 72.5% asked (n = 204). Reduced sexual activity (p > 0.001) and coronavirus diagnosis (p = 0.003) were significantly associated with poorer treatment compliance. CONCLUSIONS: There is great lack of knowledge of the treatments used for GSM. Most women do not talk to their gynecologist about sexuality. Adherence to treatments during the coronavirus confinement has been worryingly low.

Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI-correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the best method in our center to measure preoperative tumor size in breast tumors, using as reference the tumor size in the postoperative surgical specimen. We compared physical examination vs. mammography vs. resonance vs. ultrasound. There are different studies in the literature with disparate results. METHODS: This is a retrospective study. All the included patients have been studied by clinical examination performed by gynecologist or surgeon specialists in senology, and radiological tests (mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging). The correlation of mammary examination, ultrasound, mammography and resonance with pathological anatomy was studied using the Pearson index. Subsequently, the results of such imaging tests were compared with the tumor size of the infiltrating component measured by anatomopathological study using a student's t test for related variables. The level of significance was set at 95%. Statistical package R. was used. RESULTS: A total of 73 cases were collected from October 2015 to July 2016 with diagnosis of infiltrating breast carcinoma. Twelve cases of carcinoma in situ and seven cases of neoadjuvant carcinoma are excluded. Finally, a total of 56 cases were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients is 57 years. The histology is of infiltrating ductal carcinoma in 46 patients (80.7%), lobular in 8 (14%) and other carcinomas in 3 cases (5.2%). We verified the relationship between preoperative tumor size by physical examination, mammography, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the final size of the surgical specimen by applying a Pearson correlation test. A strong correlation was found between the physical examination results 0.62 (0.43-0.76 at 95% CI), ultrasound 0.68 (0.51-0.8 at 95% CI), mammography 0.57 (0.36-0.72 at 95% CI) and RM 0.51 (0.29-0.68 at 95% CI) with respect to pathological anatomy. The mean tumor size of the surgical specimen was 16.1 mm. Mean of tumor size by physical examination was 12.1 mm (P<0.05), by 14 mm US (P<0.05), by mammography of 14.3 (P<0.05) and by MRI of 22.53 mm (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography is the best predictor of tumor size in breast cancer, compared with clinical examination, mammography, and resonance. Our work could help the decision-making process such as the type of conservative surgery, the possible need for oncoplastic surgery or the decision to start treatment with neoadjuvant therapy, in patients with unifocal tumors.