Faubion, Stephanie S.

Objectives: The objective was to assess the effect of menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT) on all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus) from inception until August 2013. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of more than 6 months of duration comparing MHT with no treatment. Pairs of independent reviewers selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Results: We included 43 RCTs at moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed no effect on mortality (RR 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94–1.05]), regardless of MHT type or history of preexisting heart disease. No association was found between MHT and cardiac death (RR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87–1.23]) or stroke (RR 1.49 [95% CI 0.95–2.31]). Estrogen plus progesterone use was associated with a likely increase in breast cancer mortality (RR 1.96 [95% CI 0.98–3.94]), whereas estrogen use was not. MHT use was not associated with mortality of other types of cancer. In 5 trials, MHT was likely started at a younger age: 2 RCTs with mean age less than 60 and 3 RCTs with MHT started less than 10 years after menopause. Meta-analysis of these 5 RCTs showed a reduction of mortality with MHT (RR 0.70 [95% CI 0.52–0.95]). Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that MHT does not affect the risk of death from all causes, cardiac death and death from stroke or cancer. These data may be used to support clinical and policy deliberations about the role of MHT in the care of symptomatic postmenopausal women.

The National Institutes of Health's (NIH) commitment to improving health outcomes for women and men through rigorous science has been compromised by the lack of basic science evidence obtained from female animals. To correct this limitation, in June 2015 the NIH announced expectations that “sex,” as a biological variable, be included into research design and analysis in studies of vertebrate animals and humans (NOT-OD-15-102). Scientists must take the responsibility to implement this directive. However, in doing so, there is a risk that attention could be restricted to only studies of direct comparison between female/women and male/men. By contrast, understanding how sex influences health and disease needs to take a programmatic approach that includes the study of sex-specific conditions. A programmatic approach will assure the advancement of knowledge to improve women's health.

Background: Care of the gynecologic cancer survivor extends beyond cancer treatment to encompass promotion of sexual, cardiovascular, bone, and brain health; management of fertility, contraception, and vasomotor symptoms; and genetic counseling. Methods: This is a narrative review of the data and guidelines regarding care and surveillance of the gynecologic cancer survivor. We searched databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus using the search terms gynecologic cancer, cancer surveillance, and cancer survivor and reached a consensus for articles chosen for inclusion in the review based on availability in the English language and publication since 2001, as well as key older articles, consensus statements, and practice guidelines from professional societies. However, we did not undertake an extensive systematic search of the literature to identify all potentially relevant studies, nor did we utilize statistical methods to summarize data. We offer clinical recommendations for the management of gynecologic cancer survivors based on review of evidence and our collective clinical experience. Results: Key messages include the limitations of laboratory studies, including CA-125, and imaging in the setting of gynecologic cancer surveillance, hormonal and non-hormonal management of treatment-related vasomotor symptoms and genitourinary syndrome of menopause, as well as recommendations for general health screening, fertility preservation, and contraception. Conclusions: A holistic approach to care extending beyond cancer treatment alone benefits gynecologic cancer survivors. In addition to surveillance for cancer recurrence and late treatment side effects, survivors benefit from guidance on hormonal, contraceptive, and fertility management and promotion of cardiovascular, bone, brain, and sexual health.

Abstract Introduction Patients' sexual health functioning is important for physicians in all fields of medicine to consider; however, this topic is lacking from almost half of U.S. medical school curricula. Aims This study aims to develop, implement, and assess the feasibility of a preliminary sexual health curriculum for medical students. Methods This Sexual Health Selective (SHS) was developed and implemented by a student and faculty champion for first year medical students. Its design incorporated a number of the guiding principles and recommendations from the 2012 Summit on Medical School Education in Sexual Health. Main Outcome Measures Feasibility was measured by limited-efficacy testing and participant acceptability of the SHS. Limited-efficacy testing was accomplished by conducting descriptive comparisons of responses to a sexual health attitudes and knowledge survey. These responses were compared between (i) participants vs. nonparticipants prior to the SHS, (ii) participants immediately after vs. participants prior to the SHS, (iii) participants 3 months after vs. participants prior to the SHS, and (iv) participants 3 months after vs. participants immediately after the SHS. Participant acceptability was assessed by asking qualitatively and quantitatively whether students enjoyed the SHS, found it beneficial to their learning, and would recommend it to their classmates. Results Immediately after the SHS and 3 months later, participants reported increased comfort and open-mindedness in their attitudes toward sexual health and demonstrated an increase in accurate knowledge about sexual health issues compared with baseline. Objective follow-up also revealed that most participants enjoyed the SHS, found it beneficial to their learning, and would recommend it to their classmates. Conclusions The 1-week SHS was successfully implemented through the teamwork of a medical student and faculty champion. It resulted in more accurate knowledge and more open attitudes toward sexual health among participating medical students. Potential benefits to undergraduate medical educators are reviewed.

The value of pelvic examination for healthy asymptomatic women has been called into question given the lack of benefit for ovarian and endometrial cancer screening, the ability to screen for sexually transmitted infections without a pelvic examination, and the uncoupling of the procurement of contraception with a pelvic examination. Still, there are indications for performing pelvic examinations in symptomatic women and in some high risk women. How do we as clinicians apply current evidence and expert opinion to our medical practice? Our recommendation to consider a pelvic examination at 3-5-year intervals with cervical cancer screening to elicit gynecologic and sexual health concerns offers a compromise between continuation of unnecessary annual pelvic examinations and complete elimination of these examinations.