Systematic review evaluates menopausal hormone therapy outcomes in borderline ovarian tumor survivors, suggesting caution in use.
OBJECTIVE: Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are heterogeneous primary epithelial lesions defined by atypical epithelial proliferation without stromal invasion, accounting for approximately 15% of primary ovarian neoplasms. Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) treats vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms in postmenopausal women, yet its relationship with ovarian neoplasia, especially BOTs, remains uncertain. This systematic review evaluates the association between MHT and BOT outcomes. METHOD: Five databases were searched from inception to August 2025. Included studies were assessed for type of MHT, duration, and recurrences where reported. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: A search identified 469 studies; eleven met the inclusion criteria (four cohort, seven case-control). Six reported a statistically significant association between MHT and increased odds of BOTs; five did not. Combined estrogen-progestin therapy showed a stronger, more consistent positive association (odds ratio 1.426, 95% confidence interval 1.083-1.877), whereas estrogen-only therapy showed a nonsignificant association. Post-diagnosis evidence is extremely limited: no study addressed BOT recurrence, and only one observational study evaluated BOT survival, finding no adverse association. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the MHT-BOT association is heterogeneous and inconsistent. Although a statistical association was observed between combined MHT and increased odds of BOTs, postsurgical safety data are limited and overall certainty of evidence is very low; findings warrant considerable caution. Current literature is insufficient to confirm or exclude an association between MHT and BOT recurrence or survival. Indications for MHT after BOT surgery require individualized, multidisciplinary discussion involving oncology and menopause specialists, balancing quality-of-life benefits against unquantified theoretical risks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mejia-Gomez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: