Title |
The effect of hormone therapy on quality of life and breast cancer risk after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Women's Health, March 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12905-017-0370-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Tasneem Siyam, Sue Ross, Sandra Campbell, Dean T. Eurich, Nesé Yuksel |
Abstract |
It is unclear if the use of hormone therapy (HT) in carriers of BRCA mutations improves the quality of life (QOL) without increasing the risk of breast cancer following a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Our objective was to assess the effect of HT on QOL and breast cancer risk, after RRSO. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and others, from inception to July 22, 2016, to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened identified records for controlled trials and observational studies that addressed the effect of HT on QOL and breast cancer risk in women with BRCA mutations, post RRSO. Two reviewers independently extracted data on populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and methodological quality. Studies addressing the same outcome were synthesized using written evidence summaries or tables. Of the 1,059 records identified, 13 met our inclusion criteria. All studies were observational. Six studies assessed the effect on QOL. Of these, 3 showed improvement in QOL with HT use. The risk of breast cancer was evaluated in 4 studies. The mean duration of follow-up was 2.6 years (range 0.1-19.1). The risk of breast cancer did not change with HT use in all 4 studies. Cumulative evidence from our review suggests that short-term HT use following RRSO improves QOL. The effect on breast cancer risk is still unclear. There are too few long-term studies to draw any strong conclusions. The need for future well-designed RCTs for more established evidence is imperative. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 9 | 50% |
United States | 3 | 17% |
Spain | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 83% |
Scientists | 2 | 11% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
Other | 5 | 8% |
Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
Other | 15 | 24% |
Unknown | 19 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 37% |
Psychology | 5 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 10% |
Unknown | 20 | 32% |