↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system for endometrial protection in women with breast cancer on adjuvant tamoxifen

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Levonorgestrel intrauterine system for endometrial protection in women with breast cancer on adjuvant tamoxifen
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007245.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Dominick, Martha Hickey, Jason Chin, H Irene Su

Abstract

Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence in women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Tamoxifen also increases the risk of postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, and endometrial cancer. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) causes profound endometrial suppression. This systematic review considered the evidence that the LNG-IUS prevents the development of endometrial pathology in women taking tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. To determine the effectiveness and safety of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in pre- and postmenopausal women taking adjuvant tamoxifen following breast cancer for the outcomes of endometrial and uterine pathology including abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, and secondary breast cancer events. We searched the following databases: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register (MDSG), Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (CBCG), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), The Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, The World Health Organisation International Trials Registry, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, LILACS, PubMed, and Google. The final search was performed in October 2015. Randomised controlled trials of women with breast cancer on adjuvant tamoxifen that compared endometrial surveillance alone (control condition) versus the LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance (experimental condition) on the incidence of endometrial pathology. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. The primary outcome measure was endometrial pathology (including polyps, endometrial hyperplasia, or endometrial cancer) diagnosed at hysteroscopy or endometrial biopsy. Secondary outcome measures included fibroids, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer-related deaths. The overall quality of evidence was rated using GRADE methods. Four randomised controlled trials involving 543 women were identified and are included in this review. In the included studies, the active treatment arm was the 20 μg/day levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) plus endometrial surveillance; the control arm was endometrial surveillance alone. In tamoxifen users, the LNG-IUS led to a reduction in the incidence of endometrial polyps over both a 12-month period (Peto OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.64, 2 studies, n = 212, I² = 0%) and over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.39, 4 studies, n = 417, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). Also the LNG-IUS led to a reduction in the incidence of endometrial hyperplasia over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67, four studies, n = 417, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). However, it should be noted that the number of events of endometrial hyperplasia was low (n = 6). None of the trials were sufficiently powered to detect whether LNG-IUS leads to significant changes in the incidence of endometrial cancer in tamoxifen users. At 12 months of follow-up abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting was more common in the LNG-IUS treatment group (Peto OR 7.26, 95% CI 3.37 to 15.66, 3 studies, n = 376, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). By 24 months of follow-up, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting occurred less frequently compared to 12 months of follow-up in the LNG-IUS treatment group but was still more common than the control group (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.10, 2 studies, n = 233, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). By 60 months of follow-up, no cases of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting were reported in either group. The numbers of events for the following outcomes were low: fibroids (n = 13), breast cancer recurrence (n = 18), and breast cancer-related deaths (n = 16). There was no evidence of a difference between the LNG-IUS treatment group and controls for these outcomes. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate, due to limited sample sizes and low event rates for the outcome comparisons. The LNG-IUS reduces the incidence of benign endometrial polyps and endometrial hyperplasia in women with breast cancer taking tamoxifen. At 12 and 24 months of follow-up, the LNG-IUS increased abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting among women in the treatment group compared to those in the control. There is no clear evidence from the available randomised controlled trials that the LNG-IUS prevents endometrial cancer in these women. There is no clear evidence from the available randomised controlled trials that the LNG-IUS affects the risk of breast cancer recurrence or breast cancer-related deaths. Larger studies are necessary to assess the effects of the LNG-IUS on the incidence of endometrial cancer, and to determine whether the LNG-IUS might have an impact on the risk of secondary breast cancer events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Other 18 12%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 38 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 43 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,840,247
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,485
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,479
of 395,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#151
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.