Exploring sexual health in premenopausal patients with hormone positive early breast cancer: Comparison between LHRH and oophorectomy.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

e23172 Background: Ovarian function suppression (OFS) is recommended for premenopausal patients with hormone (HR) positive early breast cancer at higher risk of recurrence. This is achieved with the use of the luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist (LHRH) or oophorectomy. Sexual health is an important aspect for women with breast cancer, although unfortunately this issue is often not addressed. The aim of this study was to explore sexual health issues in premenopausal HR-positive patients with LHRH vs. Oophorectomy. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted during the period of June 2023 and December 2023, enrolling premenopausal patients with Early stage HR positive (HER2 positive or negative) breast cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2023, who were treated with OFS and remained free of disease. Involved patients were divided in two groups: Group A – received LHRH and Groups B - underwent oophorectomy. All patients were surveyed with EORTC QLQ-BR-45 questionnaire during their follow-up or scheduled LHRH injection visits at clinic. The questionnaire included Functional (F) and Symptom (S) scales evaluating sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, endocrine therapy symptoms, endocrine sexual symptoms. Results: It was planned to enroll 100 patients in the study, but only 34 patients (24 in Group A, 10 in Group B) consented to participate, the majority of patients did not want to share their sexual life issues, even anonymously. Of those enrolled, median age was similar (42 in group A, 43 in group B), all had stage I-II breast cancer, and all were in continued remission at the time of enrollment. A similar proportion had HER2 positive disease (25% and 20%, respectively). Far more people in Group A were treated with breast conserving surgery (67% vs 30%, respectively) with 20% of participants in in Group B undergoing bilateral mastectomy. More volunteers received chemotherapy in Group A (88% vs 60% in group B). Among those in Group B, 6 of 10 were previously treated with LHRH before oophorectomy and the procedure was done due to endometrial hyperplasia (n = 3), known BRCA mutation (n = 1), persistent estrogen levels despite LHRH (n = 1), and patient preference (n = 5). More patients had a partner at enrollment in group B (90% vs 67% in Group A); only one person identified as a lesbian (enrolled in group B). F score S > 60 was noted in more Group A vs Group B participants (50% vs 30%). More people in Group A had S score S < 40, indicating higher quality of life (79% vs 50%, respectively). Conclusions: The study suggests that sexuality after cancer is a difficult area to study in Georgia, likely due to cultural issues. While we could not account for the contribution of known variables that impact sexuality in this population (e.g. surgery type, chemotherapy) due to small numbers, our data suggest that LHRH antagonist use may have a lesser risk to sexual function compared to oophorectomy.