Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) relieves menopausal syndromes but concerns regarding certain cancer risks remain. This study aimed to investigate cancer risks in perimenopausal women using HRT. Methods: Using a health care database in Japan, we compared breast cancer and other cancer risks in perimenopausal women who started HRT between January 2011 and October 2021 at age 45-54 years with that of women who did not use HRT. Women in the control group were selected by 1:4 exact matching on birth year, and followed from the same index time as their counterparts. Results: Data from 12 207 women in the exposure group and 48 828 age-matched women in the control group were analyzed. The median HRT duration was 16.1 (interquartile range, 9.9-28.0) months. Breast cancer risk was lower in the HRT group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.82). When stratified by age, breast cancer risk was lower in the HRT group who started HRT at age 45-49 years (adjusted HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.72). Estrogen-major HRT accounted for approximately one-third of HRT and uterine corpus cancer risk was increased in estrogen-major HRT (adjusted HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.56-3.81). Conclusions: Breast cancer risk in women starting HRT between 45 and 49 years is lower than that in the average population; this finding might be susceptible to unmeasured factors such as early menopause among HRT recipients. Unopposed estrogen therapy accounts for considerable proportion of HRT in Japan and it increases uterine corpus cancer.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment efficacy and the risk of adverse events of imiquimod for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN), compared with placebo or no intervention. DATA SOURCES: We searched Cochrane, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 23, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials and prospective nonrandomized studies with control arms that investigated the efficacy of imiquimod for histologically confirmed CIN or VAIN. The primary outcomes were histologic regression of the disease (primary efficacy outcome) and treatment discontinuation due to side effects (primary safety outcome). We estimated pooled odds ratios (ORs) of imiquimod, compared with placebo or no intervention. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the proportions of patients with adverse events in the imiquimod arms. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Four studies contributed to the pooled OR for the primary efficacy outcome. An additional four studies were available for meta-analyses of proportions in the imiquimod arm. Imiquimod was associated with increased probability of regression (pooled OR 4.05, 95% CI 2.08–7.89). Pooled OR for CIN in the three studies was 4.27 (95% CI 2.11–8.66); results of one study were available for VAIN (OR, 2.67, 95% CI 0.36–19.71). Pooled probability for primary safety outcome in the imiquimod arm was 0.07 (95% CI 0.03–0.14). The pooled probabilities (95% CI) of secondary outcomes were 0.51 (0.20–0.81) for fever, 0.53 (0.31–0.73) for arthralgia or myalgia, 0.31 (0.18–0.47) for abdominal pain, 0.28 (0.09–0.61) for abnormal vaginal discharge or genital bleeding, 0.48 (0.16–0.82) for vulvovaginal pain, and 0.02 (0.01–0.06) for vaginal ulceration. CONCLUSION: Imiquimod was found to be effective for CIN, whereas data on VAIN were limited. Although local and systemic complications are common, treatment discontinuation is infrequent. Thus, imiquimod is potentially an alternative therapy to surgery for CIN. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022377982.