# Case-Based Perspectives on the Management of Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause

## TL;DR

This paper discusses how to diagnose and treat genitourinary syndrome of menopause, focusing on evidence-based approaches and special considerations for breast cancer survivors.

## Contribution

The paper provides a case-based narrative review with practical guidance on managing GSM, emphasizing evidence-based treatment options and nuanced care for breast cancer survivors.

## Key findings

- Nonhormonal options are first-line treatments for mild GSM symptoms.
- Low-dose vaginal estrogen, vaginal DHEA, and ospemifene are effective for moderate to severe GSM.
- Breast cancer survivors require individualized treatment decisions with oncology input.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), previously known as vulvovaginal atrophy, is a chronic, progressive hypoestrogenic condition affecting vulvovaginal, urinary and sexual health in women. Common symptoms include vaginal dryness, itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency and recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Despite the high prevalence, GSM is underdiagnosed and undertreated, thereby negatively impacting women’s quality of life. To illustrate the practical aspects of GSM diagnosis and provide evidence-based management, we present a case-based narrative review synthesizing recently published, high-quality evidence. Materials and Methods: Evidence was drawn from multiple sources through targeted searches of databases, and included the 2025 AUA/SUFU/AUGS guideline (AUA), the 2024 NICE network meta-analyses (NICE), a 2025 systematic review/meta-analysis in breast-cancer survivors, the 2020 Menopause Society GSM Position Statement, the 2018 NAMS/ISSWSH breast cancer consensus, several primary source citations and other high quality peer-reviewed publications. Results: Five illustrative composite case vignettes of GSM are presented to highlight the evaluation strategy and evidence-supported treatment choices. Nonhormonal options are the first line treatments for mild GSM symptoms, either with or without the addition of vaginal estrogen therapy. For moderate to severe GSM, low-dose vaginal estrogen, vaginal DHEA, and ospemifene are all effective FDA-approved options. In breast cancer survivors, individualized decisions with oncology input are warranted. Maximal caution and a shared decision-making approach is required for women using Aromatase Inhibitors (AIs) for breast cancer risk reduction when choosing treatments for GSM. Conclusions: Treating GSM improves vaginal, sexual and urinary outcomes and quality of life of women. Clinicians need to proactively screen for GSM and offer evidence-based treatment options. The treatment decisions in breast cancer survivors are nuanced, requiring a shared-decision approach.