Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36763359›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

Effect of Fractional Carbon Dioxide vs Sham Laser on Sexual Function in Survivors of Breast Cancer Receiving Aromatase Inhibitors for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause: The LIGHT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Eduard Mension, Inmaculada Alonso, Sònia Anglès-Acedo, Cristina Ros, Jorge Otero, Álvaro Villarino, Ramon Farré, Adela Saco, Naiara Vega, Natalia Castrejón and 7 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT04619485 (Sexual and Vaginal Health in Breast Cancer Women Receiving Aromatase Inhibitors Before and After CO2 Laser Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04619485 naunknown statusnot on this map

Sexual and Vaginal Health in Breast Cancer Women Receiving Aromatase Inhibitors Before and After CO2 Laser Therapy: A Randomized, Double-blind, Sham-controlled Trial - LIGHT Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Clinic of BarcelonaRan2020 to 2022Enrolled84ConditionsBreast Cancer, Genitourinary Syndrome of MenopauseArmsCO2 LASER, CO2 SHAM LASER
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laser and radiofrequency for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review of randomized controlled trial.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Impact of fractional COLasers in medical science · 2026
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Efficacy of Erbium and COLasers in surgery and medicine · 2025
    Article
  14. 2024 SOGC, 2024 NCCN, 2022 ESO-ESMO, and 2018 ASCO: a comparison of female cancer survivorship guidelines for the management of sexual health concerns.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. COCancers · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Eduard MensionClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Inmaculada AlonsoGynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology Service, Hospital Joan XXIII, Tarragona, Spain.
Sònia Anglès-AcedoClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Cristina RosClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Jorge OteroUnit of Biophysics and Bioengineering, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Álvaro VillarinoUnit of Biophysics and Bioengineering, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Ramon FarréUnit of Biophysics and Bioengineering, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Adela SacoDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Naiara VegaDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Natalia CastrejónDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Jaume OrdiDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Natalia RakislovaDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Marta TortajadaClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Isabel MatasClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Sílvia GómezClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Laura RiberaClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Camil Castelo-BrancoClinic Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Universitat de Barcelona · ESBarcelona Institute for Global Health · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias · ESConsorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer · ESHospital Universitari Joan XXIII de Tarragona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Survivors of breast cancer present more severe symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) than patients without history of breast cancer. Recently, new treatments, such as vaginal laser therapy, have appeared, but evidence of their efficacy remains scarce. Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO2) vs sham vaginal laser therapy after 6 months of follow-up in survivors of breast cancer with GSM receiving aromatase inhibitors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective double-blind sham-controlled randomized clinical trial with two parallel study groups was performed during October 2020 to March 2022 in a tertiary referral hospital. Survivors of breast cancer using aromatase inhibitors were assessed for eligibility, and eligible patients were randomized into the 2 treatment groups. Follow-up was conducted at 6 months. Data were analyzed in July 2022. Interventions: All patients from both groups were instructed to use the first-line treatment (FLT) based on nonhormonal moisturizers and vaginal vibrator stimulation. Patients for each group were allocated to 5 monthly sessions of fractional CO2 laser therapy (CLT) or sham laser therapy (SLT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sexual function, evaluated through Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) score. Other subjective measures of efficacy included a visual analog scale of dyspareunia, vaginal pH, a Vaginal Health Index, quality of life (assessed via Short-Form 12), and body image (assessed with the Spanish Body Image Scale). Objective measures of efficacy included vaginal maturation index, vaginal epithelial elasticity (measured in Pascals) and vaginal epithelial thickness (measured in millimeters). Measures were assessed before and after the intervention. Tolerance (measured on a Likert scale), adverse effects, and estradiol levels were recorded. Results: Among 211 survivors of breast cancer assessed, 84 women were deemed eligible and 72 women (mean [SD] age, 52.6 [8.3] years) were randomized to CLT (35 participants) or SLT (37 participants) and analyzed. There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline. At 6 months, both groups showed improvement in FSFI (mean [SD] score at baseline vs 6 months: CLT, 14.8 [8.8] points vs 20.0 [9.5] points; SLT, 15.6 [7.0] points vs 23.5 [6.5] points), but there was no significant difference between CLT and SLT groups in the improvement of sexual function evaluated through the FSFI test overall (mean [SD] difference, 5.2 [1.5] points vs 7.9 [1.2] points; P = .15) or after excluding women who were not sexually active (mean [SD] difference, 2.9 [1.4] points vs 5.5 [1.1] points; P = .15). There were also no differences between improvement of the 2 groups at 6 months of follow-up in the other assessed subjective outcomes, including dyspareunia (mean [SD] difference, -4.3 [3.4] vs -4.5 [2.3]; P = .73), Vaginal Health Index (mean [SD] difference, 3.3 [4.1] vs 5.0 [4.5]; P = .17), body image (mean [SD] difference, -3.7 [4.5] vs -2.7 [4.8]; P = .35), and quality of life (mean [SD] difference, -0.3 [3.6] vs -0.7 [3.2]; P = .39). Similarly, there were no differences in improvements in objective outcomes, including vaginal pH (mean [SD] difference, -0.6 [0.9] vs -0.8 [1.2]; P = .29), vaginal maturation index (mean [SD] difference, 10.2 [17.4] vs 14.4 [17.1]; P = .15), vaginal epithelial thickness (mean [SD] difference, 0.021 [0.014] mm vs 0.013 [0.012] mm; P = .30), vaginal epithelial elasticity (mean [SD] difference, -1373 [3197] Pascals vs -2103 [3771] Pascals; P = .64). There were significant improvements in the overall analysis regardless of group in many outcomes. The 2 interventions were well tolerated, but tolerance was significantly lower in the CLT group than the SLT group (mean [SD] Likert scale score, 3.3 [1.3] vs 4.1 [1.0]; P = .007). No differences were observed in complications or serum estradiol levels. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, vaginal laser treatment was found to be safe after 6 months of follow-up, but no statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between CLT and SLT. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04619485.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDyspareuniaAromatase InhibitorsCarbon DioxideEstradiolFemaleHumansLasersMenopauseMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSurvivorsSyndromeAromatase InhibitorsCarbon DioxideEstradiol

Identifiers

PMID36763359
PMCPMC9918877
OpenAlexW4319825938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.