Davide Marenco

Non-hormonal treatment of hot flushes in breast cancer survivors: gabapentin vs. vitamin E

Objectives To assess the efficacy and the tolerability of gabapentin 900 mg/day compared to vitamin E for the control of vasomotor symptoms in 115 women with breast cancer. The secondary objective was to evaluate the effect of the treatments on the quality of sleep and other aspects of the quality of life. Methods A hot flush diary was completed daily; sleep quality and other menopausal symptoms were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) and the SF-36 Health Survey. Results The prescribed treatment with gabapentin was never started by 28.3% of the patients and was interrupted by 28% for side-effects (dizziness and somnolence). Among the women allocated to vitamin E, 16.36% never started therapy and 34.78% dropped out because of inefficacy. Hot flush frequency and score decreased by 57.05% and 66.87%, respectively (p < 0.05) in the gabapentin group. The effect of vitamin E was fairly small: hot flush frequency and score were reduced by 10.02% and 7.28%, respectively (p > 0.05). Gabapentin was also particularly effective in improving the quality of sleep (PSQI score reduction: 21.33%, p < 0.05). Conclusion Gabapentin appears to be effective for the treatment of hot flushes with a favorable effect on quality of sleep. Vitamin E has only marginal effect on vasomotor symptoms.

Mirtazapine for the treatment of hot flushes in breast cancer survivors: a prospective pilot trial

Abstract:  The purposes of the study are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine 30 mg/daily for 12 weeks to reduce hot flushes (HF) in women with previous breast cancer and to assess the influence of the same treatment on sleep quality and other menopausal symptoms. A prospective pilot trial was conducted in 40 breast cancer patients with at least seven HF per day. A HF diary was completed daily; sleep quality and other menopausal symptoms were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) and the SF‐36 Health Survey. Treatment was never started by 13 out of 40 patients (32.5%) and was interrupted by 7 out of 27 patients (25%) due to of the occurrence of side effects (mostly somnolence). In the remaining 20 patients who completed the three months treatment period, there was a 55.6% (p < 0.05) reduction in HF frequency and 61.9% (p < 0.05) reduction in HF score as compared to baseline. A significant reduction in the MRS score (32.8%; p < 0.05) was observed. Mirtazapine appears to be effective in reducing HF in breast cancer survivors. The more frequent side effect was somnolence. A sizeable compiliance problem has been observed due to the reluctance to take antidepressant drugs and to side effects.

Hormonal Replacement Therapy after Gynaecological Cancer

Thousands of women are treated each year for gynaecological cancers; many of these are already in menopause, while other younger patients will go into early menopause due to surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy to the pelvic region. The aim of this paper is to review the biological and clinical evidence in favour and against hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use after gynaecological cancers. With the exception of breast and endometrial cancer, there is no biological evidence that HRT may increase the recurrence risk. In women with previous endometrial cancer, HRT use is not supported by univocal and conclusive data to formulate specific recommendations, whereas most authors suggest that oestrogens may be used after adequate information about risks and benefits. The use of HRT in breast cancer patients is, at present, considered contra-indicated, even if results of clinical trials are not concordant. Therapeutic non-hormonal alternatives may be proposed to these patients.