07/12/2025
Here is an interesting study from Siitonen et al. who assessed the impact of vaginal oestradiol (VE) on the risk of re**al cancer (RC). This was a nationwide case-control study of primary re**al cancer cases with five age-matched control cases in 1994–2019 from a dataset of 1.1 million Finnish postmenopausal women. Users of systemic hormone replacement therapy were excluded. Users of vaginal oestradiol (10–25 μg twice a week) were traced from 1994–2013.
Odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for re**al cancer risk with adjusted logistic regression models separately for vaginal oestradiol users in 1994–2013 and for the whole study period of 1994–2019 (2853 cases, 13865 controls).
Results
During follow-up, 494 re**al cancer patients (17 %) and 2826 controls (20 %) used vaginal oestradiol (p < 0.001). Users were diagnosed with re**al cancer on average nine years later than non-users (73.9 vs 65.1 years, p < 0.001). Use for ≥3 years was associated with a reduced risk of re**al cancer (OR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.63–0.97) in the 1994–2013 cohort. In the extended 1994–2019 follow-up, risk reductions were similar (0.79, 0.68–0.92), appeared already with less than 3 years' use (0.85, 0.74–0.97), and persisted for up to 5 years after cessation of vaginal oestradiol (0.80, 0.71–0.91).
The authors concluded that vaginal oestradiol use may be associated with a reduced risk of re**al cancer - perhaps due to oestradiol infiltration into the re**al mucosa. This possible protecting effect could be an important additional health benefit of vaginal oestradiol.
Vaginal estradiol use was associated with 12 to 23 % reductions in RC risk.
The study has its strengths and limitations. Strengths - large numbers, five comparative control women for each case, data were collected from government-controlled registries, exclusion of all women with systemic hormonal use and follow up for a long period of 25 years.
Limitations - not able to control several confounders such as diet, smoking, family history, and obesity (authors emphasise that Finnish patients with colore**al cancer do not differ from the background population concerning the socioeconomic factors) and potential bias of generally healthier lifestyle in VE users. The authors also could not address the use of biologically weaker oestrogens, such as oestriol and most of VE exposures consisted of 25 μg vaginal tablets, and therefore, data should be applied with caution to women using 10 μg VE tablets.
These data certainly have future research (randomised controlled trials) and clinical implications. Vaginal oestrogens have a large number of genitourinary benefits with minimal to no risks and any added benefits such as above would be an important part of counselling and consideration about this treatment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512225006103