Naughton, Michelle J.

104 Background: Lymphedema (LE), a side effect of BC treatment, affects 8%–56% of women. The study tested the effectiveness of an education only vs education + exercise intervention on LE incidence in a group randomized trial (NCT00376597) of 38 cooperative group sites. Methods: Newly diagnosed women with stage I-III BC were consented and arm circumference and range of motion were measured pre-surgery. After surgery, patients (pts) were enrolled based on the randomization assignment of their treating institution, stratified by their type of node dissection (sentinel or axillary), and received either: education only: its causes, signs, symptoms and risk reduction strategies, or education + personalized exercise instruction from a physical therapist, with elastic compression garments to wear during heavy arm use and air travel. Pts completed surveys and arm measurements at baseline (BL), 12 and 18 months with the LE endpoint defined as ≥ 10% difference in limb volume at any time from BL to 18 months or physician diagnosis of LE. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests were used to compare the LE-free rate between arms, adjusted for type of biopsy. Logistic regression assessed predictors of LE. Results: 568 pts were enrolled, 45% in education only, and 55% in education + exercise, with 554 (98%) included in the analyses. Pts were on average 57.7 years, White (83%), non-Hispanic (92%) and married (62%). 47% only had sentinel node dissection, 35% had mastectomy, and 37% had chemotherapy. The LE-free rate was 58% in education only vs 55% in education + exercise (CMH p = 0.73). Predictors of LE included surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy, OR = 2.22, p < 0.001) and chemotherapy (no vs yes, OR = 1.73, p = 0.02), after adjusting for BMI and type of node dissection. Only one-third wore the sleeve at least 75% of the time and only 50% did LE exercises at least weekly. Conclusions: There was no difference by intervention arm in LE incidence by 18 months. Poor adherence in the education + exercise arm may have been a factor. Additional analyses will assess quality of life, body image and knowledge about LE by arm. Further research is needed to effectively prevent LE in pts after BC surgery. Research Support: UL1TR001409; U10CA037447, UG1CA189823 Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.

Abstract Objective: Sleep disturbance and sexual dysfunction are common in menopause; however, the nature of their association is unclear. The present study aimed to determine whether sleep characteristics were associated with sexual activity and sexual satisfaction. Methods: Sexual function in the last year and sleep characteristics (past 4 wk) were assessed by self-report at baseline for 93,668 women age 50 to 79 years enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Observational Study (OS). Insomnia was measured using the validated WHI Insomnia Rating Scale. Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) risk was assessed using questions adapted from the Berlin Questionnaire. Using multivariate logistic regression, we examined cross-sectional associations between sleep measures and two indicators of sexual function: partnered sexual activity and sexual satisfaction within the last year. Results: Fifty-six percent overall reported being somewhat or very satisfied with their current sexual activity, and 52% reported partnered sexual activity within the last year. Insomnia prevalence was 31%. After multivariable adjustment, higher insomnia scores were associated with lower odds of sexual satisfaction (yes/no) (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% CI, 0.87-0.96). Short sleep duration (<7-8 h) was associated with lower odds of partnered sexual activity (yes/no) (≤5 h, OR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and less sexual satisfaction (≤5 h, OR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.81-0.95). Conclusions: Shorter sleep durations and higher insomnia scores were associated with decreased sexual function, even after adjustment for potential confounders, suggesting the importance of sufficient, high-quality sleep for sexual function. Longitudinal investigation of sleep and its impact on sexual function postmenopause will clarify this relationship.

Abstract Further analyses from the Women's Health Initiative estrogen trial shows that CEE reduced fracture risk. The fracture reduction at the hip did not differ appreciably among risk strata. These data do not support overall benefit over risk, even in women at highest risk for fracture. Introduction: The Women's Health Initiative provided evidence that conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) can significantly reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Additional analysis of the effects of CEE on BMD and fracture are presented. Materials and Methods: Postmenopausal women 50–79 years of age with hysterectomy were randomized to CEE 0.625 mg daily (n = 5310) or placebo (n = 5429) and followed for an average 7.1 years. Fracture incidence was assessed by semiannual questionnaire and verified by adjudication of radiology reports. BMD was measured in a subset of women (N = 938) at baseline and years 1, 3, and 6. A global index was used to examine whether the balance of risks and benefits differed by baseline fracture risk. Results: CEE reduced the risk of hip (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.94), clinical vertebral (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44–0.93), wrist/lower arm (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47–0.72), and total fracture (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64–0.80). This effect did not differ among strata according to age, oophorectomy status, past hormone use, race/ethnicity, fall frequency, physical activity, or fracture history. Total fracture reduction was less in women at the lowest predicted fracture risk in both absolute and relative terms (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68–1.08). CEE also provided modest but consistent positive effects on BMD. The HRs of the global index for CEE were relatively balanced across tertiles of summary fracture risk (lowest risk: HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62–1.05; mid risk: HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92–1.30; highest risk: HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88–1.23; interaction, p = 0.42). Conclusions: CEE reduces the risk of fracture and increases BMD in hysterectomized postmenopausal women. Even among the women with the highest risk for fractures, when considering the effects of estrogen on other important health outcomes, a summary of the burden of monitored effects does not indicate a significant net benefit.