Dataset Information

A single-arm clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of a non-hormonal, hyaluronic acid-based vaginal moisturizer in endometrial cancer survivors.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the efficacy of non-hormonal, hyaluronic acid (HLA)-based vaginal gel in improving vulvovaginal estrogen-deprivation symptoms in women with a history of endometrial cancer.

Methods

For this single-arm, prospective, longitudinal trial, we enrolled disease-free women with a history of endometrial cancer who underwent surgery (total hysterectomy) and postoperative radiation. Participants used HLA daily for the first 2 weeks, and then 3×/week until weeks 12-14; dosage was then increased to 5×/week for non-responders. Vulvovaginal symptoms and pH were assessed at 4 time points (baseline [T1]; 4-6 weeks [T2]; 12-14 weeks [T3]; 22-24 weeks [T4]) with clinical evaluation, the Vaginal Assessment Scale (VAS), Vulvar Assessment Scale (VuAS), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), and Menopausal Symptom Checklist (MSCL).

Results

Of 43 patients, mean age was 59 years (range, 38-78); 54% (23/43) were partnered; and 49% (21/43) were sexually active. VAS, VuAS, MSCL, and SAQ (Sexual Activity Questionnaire) scores significantly improved from baseline to each assessment point (all p < .002). FSFI total mean scores significantly increased from T1 to T2 (p < .05) and from T1 to T4 (p < .03). At T1, 41% (16/39) felt confident about future sexual activity compared to 68% (17/25) at T4 (p = .096). Severely elevated vaginal pH (>6.5) decreased from 30% (13/43) at T1 to 19% (5/26) at T4 (p = .41).

Conclusion

The HLA-based gel improved vulvovaginal health and sexual function of endometrial cancer survivors in perceived symptoms and clinical exam outcomes. HLA administration 1-2×/week is recommended for women in natural menopause; a 3-5×/week schedule appears more effective for symptom relief in cancer survivors.

SUBMITTER: Carter J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7423634 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Nearly half of postmenopausal women report bothersome vulvovaginal symptoms, but few data support the efficacy of 2 commonly recommended treatments. Objective:To compare the efficacy of a low-dose vaginal estradiol tablet and a vaginal moisturizer, each vs placebo, for treatment of moderate-to-severe postmenopausal vulvovaginal symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants:This 12-week multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolled postmenopausal women with moderate to severe symptoms of vulvovaginal itching, pain, dryness, irritation, or pain with penetration. Interventions:Vaginal 10-μg estradiol tablet (daily for 2 weeks, then twice weekly) plus placebo gel (3 times a week) (n = 102) vs placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer (n = 100) vs dual placebo (n = 100). Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcome was decrease in severity (0-3) of most bothersome symptom (MBS) between enrollment and 12 weeks. Additional measures included a composite vaginal symptom score, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) score (2-36), modified Female Sexual Distress Score-Revised item 1, treatment satisfaction and meaningful benefit, Vaginal Maturation Index, and vaginal pH. Results:The 302 women had a mean (SD) age of 61 (4) years and were primarily white (267 [88%]), college educated (200 [66%]), and sexually active (245 [81%]). Most women (294 [97%]) provided data for the primary analysis. The most commonly reported MBS was pain with vaginal penetration (182 [60%]), followed by vulvovaginal dryness (63 [21%]). Mean baseline MBS severity was similar between treatment groups: estradiol, 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.6); moisturizer, 2.5 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.6); placebo, 2.5 (95% CI, 2.4 to 2.6). All treatment groups had similar mean reductions in MBS severity over 12 weeks: estradiol, -1.4 (95% CI, -1.6 to -1.2); moisturizer, -1.2 (95% CI, -1.4 to -1.0); and placebo, -1.3 (95% CI, -1.5 to -1.1). No significant differences were seen between estradiol (P = .25) or moisturizer (P = .31) compared with placebo. Mean total FSFI improvement was similar between estradiol (5.4; 95% CI, 4.0 to 6.9) and placebo (4.5; 95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1) (P = .64), and between moisturizer (3.1; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.5) and placebo (P = .17). Conclusions and Relevance:Our results suggest that neither prescribed vaginal estradiol tablet nor over-the-counter vaginal moisturizer provides additional benefit over placebo vaginal tablet and gel in reducing postmenopausal vulvovaginal symptoms. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02516202.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Endometrial cancer is a cancer of the lining of the womb and worldwide is the seventh most common cancer in women. Treatment with hormones is thought to be beneficial in patients with endometrial cancer. OBJECTIVES:To assess the indications, effectiveness and safety of hormone therapy for advanced or recurrent epithelial endometrial cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE up to May 2009 and and CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2009). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied hormonal therapy in adult women diagnosed with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Comparisons were restricted to single-trial analyses so we did not synthesise data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS:We found six trials (542 participants) that met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of hormonal therapy in women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as a single agent, as part of combination therapy and as low versus high dose. All comparisons were restricted to single-trial analyses, where we found no evidence that hormonal therapy as a single agent or as a combination treatment prolonged overall or five-year disease-free survival of women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. However, low-dose hormonal therapy may have had a benefit in terms of overall and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to high-dose hormonal therapy (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.66 and HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.71 for overall and PFS, respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:We found insufficient evidence that hormonal treatment in any form, dose or as part of combination therapy improves the survival of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. However, a large number of patients would be needed to demonstrate an effect on survival and none of the included RCTs had a sufficient number of patients to demonstrate a significant difference. In the absence of a proven survival advantage and the heterogeneity of patient populations, the decision to use any type of hormonal therapy should be individualised and with the intent to palliate the disease. It is debatable whether outcomes such as quality of life, treatment response or palliative measures such as relieving symptoms should take preference over overall and PFS as the major objectives of future trials.

Project description:PurposeCancer-related fatigue is a prevalent, debilitating condition that can persist for months or years after treatment. In a single-arm clinical trial, the feasibility and safety of a time-restricted eating (TRE) intervention were evaluated among cancer survivors, and initial estimates of within-person change in cancer-related fatigue were obtained.MethodsParticipants were 4-60 months post-cancer treatment, were experiencing fatigue (≥ 3 on a scale 0-10), and were not following TRE. TRE entailed limiting all food and beverages to a self-selected 10-h window for 14 days. Participants reported their eating window in a daily diary and completed the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), and symptom inventory pre- and post-intervention. This study was pre-registered at clinicaltrials.gov in January 2020 (NCT04243512).ResultsParticipants (n=39) were 61.5 ± 12.4 years old and 1.8 ± 1.3 years post-treatment; 89.7% had had breast cancer. The intervention was feasible in that 36/39 (92.3%) of participants completed all questionnaires and daily diaries. It was also safe with no severe adverse events or rapid weight loss (average loss of 1.1 ± 2.3 pounds, p=0.008). Most adhered to TRE; 86.1% ate within a 10-h window at least 80% of the days, and the average eating window was 9.33 ± 1.05 h. Fatigue scores improved 5.3 ± 8.1 points on the FACIT-F fatigue subscale (p<0.001, effect size [ES]=0.55), 30.6 ± 35.9 points for the FACIT-F total score (p<0.001, ES=0.50), and -1.0 ± 1.7 points on the BFI (p<0.001, ES=-0.58).ConclusionA 10-h TRE intervention was feasible and safe among survivors, and fatigue improved with a moderate effect size after two weeks.LimitationsThis was a single-arm study, so it is possible that expectation effects were present for fatigue outcomes, independent of effects of TRE per se. However, this feasibility trial supports evaluation of TRE in randomized controlled trials to address persistent cancer-related fatigue.