Faubion, Stephanie S.

Abstract Although a woman's healthcare provider has the best opportunity to address hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), most women are reluctant to discuss their loss of sexual desire. The feeling is often mutual, because limited education and misunderstanding persist, leaving few providers feeling competent to assess and treat this condition. The purpose of this Practice Pearl is to improve the clinician's understanding of and confidence in discussing HSDD, including symptoms, etiology, burden, diagnosis, and treatment.

Bilateral oophorectomy in premenopausal women is a unique condition causing the abrupt and premature loss of ovarian hormones, primarily estrogen. Bilateral oophorectomy causes an alteration of several fundamental aging processes at the cellular, tissue, organ, and system levels, leading to multimorbidity, frailty, and reduced survival. However, many questions remain unanswered.

Abstract Background Sexual dysfunction is often complex and biopsychosocial. Traditional sexual health care management involves individual providers not in a multi-disciplinary setting. A multi-disciplinary team may consist of a medical provider, pelvic floor physical therapist, and sex therapist. Aim The aim was to explore the patient perceptions of benefit from management of their sexual dysfunction by a biopsychosocial multi-disciplinary team. Methods A survey was e-mailed to women patients seen by multi-disciplinary teams at 2 different settings: San Diego Sexual Medicine or Mayo Clinic Women's Health Clinic during a 27-month period. Data are reported using summary statistics for age and count for remaining survey responses. Cochran-Armitage tests for trend were used to compare pre- and post-comfort levels. Outcomes Main outcome measures included perceived benefit of being managed in a team-based model of care, level of benefit and satisfaction from each provider, and difference from pre-conceived level of comfort to actual comfort after each provider visit. Results 89 of 270 e-mailed surveys were analyzed. Patient populations (mean age 47.6, range 23–77 years) were similar between sites. Overall, 82% of respondents reported moderate/great benefit from the team-based model; 72.1% reported management by all 3 providers valuable/extremely valuable; and 84.3% were somewhat/very satisfied with the model. Women endorsed specific ways in which they benefitted from the team-based model including: improved sexual function (58.1%), feeling validated (72.1%) and listened to (62.8%), that they better understood their health concerns (65.1%), that their partner better understood their health concerns (46.5%), and feeling normal (46.5%). There were no significant differences between the 2 clinics in terms of patient-perceived benefit, value, or satisfaction. Conclusions The team-based model of care for management of sexual dysfunction in women including a medical provider, physical therapist, and sex therapist is associated with patient-perceived benefit, satisfaction, and value.

Gynecologic cancers are common in the United States and represent a significant health burden. Treatment of these cancers often causes premature cessation of ovarian function, with resultant symptoms that are often more severe than those associated with natural menopause. Hormone therapy is the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms, but the decision-making process about its use can be complex for survivors of gynecologic cancer. In this review, we provide evidence-based recommendations about the use of hormone therapy after gynecologic cancer.

Abstract The objective of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH) Expert Consensus Panel was to create a point of care algorithm for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in women with or at high risk for breast cancer. The consensus recommendations will assist healthcare providers in managing GSM with a goal of improving the care and quality of life for these women. The Expert Consensus Panel is comprised of a diverse group of 16 multidisciplinary experts well respected in their fields. The panelists individually conducted an evidence-based review of the literature in their respective areas of expertise. They then met to discuss the latest treatment options for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in survivors of breast cancer and review management strategies for GSM in women with or at high risk for breast cancer, using a modified Delphi method. This iterative process involved presentations summarizing the current literature, debate, and discussion of divergent opinions concerning GSM assessment and management, leading to the development of consensus recommendations for the clinician. Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is more prevalent in survivors of breast cancer, is commonly undiagnosed and untreated, and may have early onset because of cancer treatments or risk-reducing strategies. The paucity of evidence regarding the safety of vaginal hormone therapies in women with or at high risk for breast cancer has resulted in avoidance of treatment, potentially adversely affecting quality of life and intimate relationships. Factors influencing decision-making regarding treatment for GSM include breast cancer recurrence risk, severity of symptoms, response to prior therapies, and personal preference. We review current evidence for various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapeutic modalities in women with a history of or at high risk for breast cancer and highlight the substantial gaps in the evidence for safe and effective therapies and the need for future research. Treatment of GSM is individualized, with nonhormone treatments generally being first line in this population. The use of local hormone therapies may be an option for some women who fail nonpharmacologic and nonhormone treatments after a discussion of risks and benefits and review with a woman's oncologist. We provide consensus recommendations for an approach to the management of GSM in specific patient populations, including women at high risk for breast cancer, women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancers, women with triple-negative breast cancers, and women with metastatic disease.