Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scoping review finds vaginal CO₂ laser therapy lacks clear superiority over sham controls in breast cancer survivors, indicating that current evidence for its efficacy remains limited.
Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is highly prevalent among breast cancer survivors (BCSs), largely due to treatment-induced hypoestrogenism. Hormonal therapies are often contraindicated, creating a need for non-hormonal options. This scoping review aimed to map and critically summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vaginal CO₂ laser therapy for GSM in women with current or previous breast cancer. A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and APA PsycInfo were searched from inception to June 2025. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating vaginal CO₂ laser therapy for GSM among BCSs were included. Data were extracted on study design, laser protocols, outcomes, follow-up, and adverse events. Twenty-two study reports representing approximately 1,099 BCSs participant observations were included. Most observational studies reported within-group improvements in GSM symptoms, FSFI, VAS, and Vaginal Health Index scores. Treatment was generally well tolerated in the short term. However, study designs, populations, outcome measures, and follow-up durations were heterogeneous. The two sham-controlled randomized trials did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful benefit over sham treatment, whereas the two active-comparator randomized trials found no clear differences between CO₂ laser therapy, radiofrequency, and promestriene. Vaginal CO₂ laser therapy appears well tolerated in the short term, but current evidence remains limited. Further adequately powered sham-controlled trials with standardized outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed to establish treatment-specific efficacy and safety in BCSs with GSM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacobsen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: