Abstract
Background:
Perceived cognitive impairments(PCI) are the most common complications that Non-Central Nervous System (Non-CNS) cancers survivors experience. Studies have suggested that those who expreience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) tend to report cognitive problems; however, this association has not been examined.
Methods:
Participants (n = 6,714) were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative Life and Longevity After Cancer study. FCR was assessed using the Cancer Worry Scale and PCI was assessed using the PCI subscale of FACT-Cog. The association between FCR and PCI was analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. A cut off score of ≥ 14 is indicative of high FCR and below 14 indicating low FCR. Scores lower than 60 indicated PCI.
Result:
The multivariable model showed that higher FCR corresponded to an increase in odds of PCI (OR = 1.15, p < 0.001). We also found that older age at diagnosis (p < 0.001), less social support (p = 0.01), over ten pounds of weight gain after cancer treatment (p = 0.02), and mild or worse anxiety (p < 0.001) were also associated with increased odds of PCI from the multivariable analysis.
Discussion:
Our findings indicate that survivors with higher FCR demonstrated poorer cognitive performance than those with lower FCR. These results suggest that those with higher FCR are more likely to report PCI.
Keywords: Cognition, Fear of cancer recurrence, Cancer survivors, Cognition, Older women
1. Background
The number of older cancer survivors continues to increase due to an increasing population of older adults, enhanced detection, and the development of cancer treatments [1]. In the United States, approximately 64% of cancer survivors are 65 years and older, which is expected to grow to 73% by 2040 [2,3]. Cancer is most prevalent among those older than 65, and it is no longer viewed as acute but as a chronic illness that needs to be managed for the remainder of their lives [4]. Thus, optimization of the health of older cancer survivors should include appropriate management of their cancer-related complications.
Studies have reported that older cancer survivors experience more side effects from cancer treatments and a more complicated recovery due to advanced age and comorbidities, relative to younger cancer survivors [4-6]. Cognitive impairments (CI) are the most common complications older survivors perceive after treatment [7], which include problems in memory, processing speeds, concentration, multitasking and word retrieval [8]. Such perceived cognitive impairments (PCI) significantly impact older survivors’ functional status, level of independence, decision-making capacity, treatment adherence, quality of life, and ultimately their survival [9]. Therefore, investigating factors associated with PCI in older cancer survivors is crucial to identify targets for treatment.
Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) may be associated with PCI. FCR is defined as the ‘fear, worry, or concern relating to the possibility that cancer will come back or progress in the original cancer site or in another part of body’ [10]. FCR is a broad concept that describes the emotion and attention to potential cancer recurrence, which is uncertain and unmanageable [11]. A recent systematic review has found that 59% of survivors reported moderate FCR and a further 19% reported severe FCR [12]. However, these findings have mostly been limited to short-term and young cancer survivors. Given that the number of older cancer survivors is growing, it is important to examine FCR in this age group, particularly its association with perceived cognitive function across multiple cancer types.
Although the exact underlying mechanism of the association between FCR and perceived cognitive function remains unknown, several studies offer some potential cues. According to a model by Lee-Jones, FCR can result in negative consequences in psychological aspects, including anxiety [13]. Similarly, one recent study showed that higher FCR is associated with higher symptom distress, which is a known risk factor for PCI [14]. Other studies have further reported that FCR is associated with higher levels of emotional symptoms (e.g. anxiety), physical symptoms (e.g. fatigue), and dysfunctional behavior (e.g. hypervigilance) [15-17], which contribute to PCI [18].
However, despite the potential link between FCR and perceived cognitive functioning, this association has not been examined in older cancer survivors. To address this gap, we will investigate the associations between FCR and perceived cognitive function among older females with Non-Central Nervous System (Non-CNS) cancers (e.g. melanoma, colorectal, endometrial, lung, breast, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers) in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Life and Longevity After Cancer (LILAC) cohort. In this study, we hypothesized that higher FCR would be associated with greater reports of PCI among older females with Non-CNS cancers.
2. Methods
2.1. Study design and participants
Details of the WHI and the WHI LILAC cohort have been described previously [19,20]. Briefly, between 1993 and 1998, the WHI recruited postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 79 years from 40 clinical centers throughout the USA. Participants were randomized into one or more clinical trials (n = 68,132) or an observational study (n = 93,676). Participants were followed for up to 10 years within the WHI, and many continued follow-up in the WHI extension studies (including the LILAC study) that began in 2005. In 2013, the WHI LILAC study enrolled WHI participants who had been diagnosed with select cancers (breast, endometrial, ovarian, lung, and colorectal cancers, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia) after their enrollment in WHI. The goal of the WHI LILAC was to expand the existing WHI data to support studies of cancer outcomes, survivorship, and molecular epidemiology [19].
For the current analyses, WHI LILAC participants were included if they were diagnosed with Non-CNS cancers (e.g. melanoma, colorectal, endometrial, lung, breast, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers) and had non-missing data on FCR and cognitive functioning on the year-1 follow-up LILAC questionnaire. All materials used in the collection of records have been approved by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Institutional Review Board, which is the Institutional Review Board of record for the WHI (3647) and the WHI LILAC (8239, 2006C0007) study. All participants in the WHI and the WHI LILAC provided written informed consent.
2.2. FCR measure
FCR was measured on the year-1 LILAC follow-up questionnaire with the eight survey questions from the Cancer Worry Scale [21]. The scale includes such items as ‘How often do you think about your chances of getting cancer again?’ and ‘Do these thoughts affect your mood?’ Item response categories are on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (rarely or never) to 4 (all the time). Scale scores range from 8 to 32, with higher scores indicating more frequent worries about cancer recurrence. A cut off score of ≥ 14 is indicative of high FCR; below 14 indicating low FCR. Internal consistency for the score was high (Cronbach α = .87) [21] and has been validated among cancer survivors [22].
2.3. Perceived cognitive functioning measure
Cognitive functioning was measured on the year-1 LILAC follow-up questionnaire with the 20-item PCI subscale of the FACT-Cog [23]. Participants were asked to rate the frequency of cognitive problems that they had perceived in the past 7 days using a 5-point Likert type scale. Possible responses for each item ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (several times a day). Answers were reverse coded, and a total score ranged from 0 to 80, where lower scores indicate worse cognitive function (i.e. PCI). Scores lower than 60 indicated impairments in perceived cognitive functioning [24]. Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale ranged from 0.77 to 0.86 [23].
2.4. Covariates
Factors that affect cognitive functioning were derived from published literature and included age, race, ethnicity, education, cancer stage, self-reported cancer treatment, comorbidities, and social support [25,26]. Participants self-reported comorbidities that include obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease on the WHI and LILAC baseline questionnaire (Form 340, Form 33, Form 80). Social support was measured on the LILAC baseline questionnaire using five survey questions from the Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey [27]. Scores were transformed to 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater support.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Demographics and clinical information of the cohort were summarized descriptively, with continuous variables reported as median [first-third quartile] due to non-normal distributions of the data. The association between FCR and perceived cognitive functioning was analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models, with the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals reported. Backward variable selection was used to create the multivariable model, including FCR and all other variables significant at the p < 0.05 level during the univariable analysis. From the initial model, variables were removed one at a time until all variables remaining in the final model had p < 0.10 (removed variables: diabetes, p = 0.82; marital status, p = 0.21; heart disease, p = 0.12). Interaction effects between each variable and FCR were tested in the final model; however, none were significant. Complete case analysis was used for modeling due to low levels of missing data. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).
3. Results
3.1. Sample characteristics
Among 6,714 women included in the study cohort, the median (Q1-Q3) age was 71 (66-77) years. The average time between cancer diagnosis and FACT-COG completion was 8.8 (SD = 5.0) years. The majority of women were Non-Hispanic White (92.6%), presently married (46.4%), and had at least a 4-year college degree (52.7%). A little more than half had breast cancer (58.4%) followed by colorectal (10.3%), endometrial (8.9%), melanoma (6.6%), lymphoma (5.9%), lung (5%), ovarian (2.7%), and leukemia (2.2%). In addition, 71% had localized Non-CNS cancers. Approximately 70% did not receive chemotherapy but received radiation, hormone, and other therapy (stem cell transplantation). The majority of women had high blood pressure (68.8%) followed by anxiety (41%), obesity (23.4%), diabetes (17.7%), and heart disease (16.9%). The median score of social support was 80 [range: 60-95], and that of FCR was 10 [range: 9-13]. Among study participants, approximately 20% reported higher FCR (FCR score > 14). In addition, approximately 79% scored above 60 on FACT-Cog PCI, meaning they likely did not have CI. Table 1 displays characteristics of the study participants. Table 2 displays univariable logistic regression comparing odds of PCI (FACT-Cog score < 60) by sample characteristics. The odds of PCI were related with age at diagnosis (p < .001), marital status (p < .001), education (p < 0.001), heart disease (p < .001), diabetes (p = .01), weight gain (p = .002), anxiety (p < .001), social support (p < .001), and FCR (p < .001).
Table 1.
Description of sample characteristics (n = 6714).
| Age at diagnosis (years) | Median [Q1-Q3] |
|---|---|
| N = 6714 | 71 [66-77] |
| Years from diagnosis to FACT-Cog survey | Median [Q1-Q3] |
| N = 6714 | 8.1 [4.4-13.0] |
| Race | n (%) |
| American Indian/Alaskan Native | 10 (0.1%) |
| Asian | 114 (1.7%) |
| Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 4 (0.1%) |
| Black | 247 (3.7%) |
| White | 6220 (92.6%) |
| More than 1 race | 72 (1.1%) |
| Unknown/Not reported | 47 (0.7%) |
| Ethnicity | n (%) |
| Not Hispanic/Latino | 6575 (97.9%) |
| Hispanic/Latino | 123 (1.8%) |
| Unknown/Not reported | 16 (0.2%) |
| Marital status | n (%) |
| Married or living as married | 3118 (46.4%) |
| Widowed | 2170 (32.3%) |
| Divorced/separated | 839 (12.5%) |
| Never married | 288 (4.3%) |
| Unknown/missing | 299 (4.5%) |
| Education | n (%) |
| ≤ High school | 958 (14.3%) |
| Some college, AD, Vocational school | 2214 (33.0%) |
| College grad | 1935 (28.8%) |
| Post grad | 1567 (23.3%) |
| Unknown/missing | 40 (0.6%) |
| Cancer Types | n (%) |
| Breast | 3922 (58.4%) |
| Colorectal | 692 (10.3%) |
| Endometrial | 595 (8.9%) |
| Lung | 337 (5.0%) |
| Ovarian | 181 (2.7%) |
| Leukemia | 146 (2.2%) |
| Lymphoma | 397 (5.9%) |
| Melanoma (invasive) | 444 (6.6%) |
| Cancer Stage | n (%) |
| Local | 4765 (71.0%) |
| Regional | 1371 (20.4%) |
| Distant | 494 (7.4%) |
| Unknown | 84 (1.2%) |
| Cancer Treatment (Self-reported or from medical records abstraction) | n (%) |
| Chemotherapy (n = 38 missing data) | 1980 (29.7%) |
| Radiation (n = 39 unknown) | 3103 (46.5%) |
| Hormone/Endocrine (n = 108 missing data) | 2821 (42.7%) |
| Other (Stem cell transplantation, tumorvaccine) (n = 137 missing data) | 288 (4.4%) |
| Comorbidities | n (%) |
| High blood pressure | 4486 (66.8%) |
| Heart disease | 1133 (16.9%) |
| Diabetes | 1188 (17.7%) |
| Obesity (BMI > 30) (n = 4 missing data) | 1569 (23.4%) |
| Weight gain > 10 Ib (n = 913 unknown) | 942 (16.2%) |
| Anxiety in past4weeks (mild/moderate/severe; n = 156 missing) | 2691 (41%) |
| Social Support | Median [Q1-Q3] |
| N = 6158 | 80 [60-95] |
| Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) | n (%) |
| Low (< 14) | 5512 (82.1%) |
| High (≥ 14) | 1202 (17.9%) |
| Cognitive impairment | n (%) |
| Yes (FACT-Cog score < 60) | 1444 (21.5%) |
| No (Score 60-80) | 5270 (78.5%) |
Table 2.
Univariable logistic regression comparing odds of perceived cognitive impairment (FACT-Cog score < 60).
| Age at diagnosis (years) | Cognitive impairment n (%) | OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-year increase | n/a | 1.27 (1.18-1.37) | < 0.001 | |
| Years from diagnosis to FACT-Cog survey | ||||
| 5-year increase | n/a | 1.05 (0.99-1.12) | 0.08 | |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married or living as married | 620/3118 (19.9) | Ref | < 0.001 | |
| Widowed | 526/2170 (24.2) | 1.29 (1.13-1.47) | ||
| Divorced/separated | 174/839 (20.7) | 1.05 (0.87-1.27) | ||
| Never married | 43/288 (14.9) | 0.71 (0.51-0.99) | ||
| Education | ||||
| ≤ High school | 235/958 (24.5) | Ref | < 0.001 | |
| Some college, AD, Vocational school | 523/2214 (23.6) | 0.95 (0.80-1.14) | ||
| College grad | 372/1935 (19.2) | 0.73 (0.61-0.88) | ||
| Post grad | 306/1567 (19.5) | 0.75 (0.62-0.91) | ||
| Cancer Types | ||||
| Breast | 848/3922 (21.6) | Ref | 0.92 | |
| Colorectal | 155/692 (22.4) | 1.05 (0.86-1.27) | ||
| Endometrial | 124/595 (20.8) | 0.95 (0.77-1.18) | ||
| Lung | 73/337 (21.7) | 1.00 (0.77-1.31) | ||
| Ovarian | 39/181 (21.6) | 1.00 (0.69-1.43) | ||
| Leukemia | 26/146 (17.8) | 0.79 (0.51-1.21) | ||
| Lymphoma | 90/397 (22.7) | 1.06 (0.83-1.36) | ||
| Melanoma (invasive) | 89/444 (20.1) | 0.91 (0.71-1.16) | ||
| Cancer Stage | ||||
| Local | 1022/4765 (21.5) | Ref | 0.93 | |
| Regional | 299/1371 (21.8) | 1.02 (0.88-1.18) | ||
| Distant | 104/494 (21.1) | 0.98 (0.78-1.23) | ||
| Cancer Treatment (Self-reported or from medical records abstraction) | ||||
| Chemotherapy | Yes | 417/1980 (21.1) | 0.97 (0.85-1.10) | 0.61 |
| No | 1015/4696 (21.6) | Ref | ||
| Radiation | Yes | 664/3103 (21.4) | 1.00 (0.89-1.12) | 0.99 |
| No | 765/3572 (21.4) | Ref | ||
| Hormone/Endocrine | Yes | 592/2821 (21.0) | 0.98 (0.87-1.10) | 0.74 |
| No | 807/3785 (21.3) | Ref | ||
| Other (Stem cell transplantation, tumor vaccine) | Yes | 54/288 (18.8) | 0.85 (0.63-1.15) | 0.29 |
| No | 1343/6289 (21.4) | Ref | ||
| Comorbidities | ||||
| High blood pressure | Yes | 991/4486 (22.1) | 1.11 (0.98-1.26) | 0.10 |
| No | 453/2228 (20.3) | Ref | ||
| Heart disease | Yes | 299/1133 (26.4) | 1.39 (1.20-1.61) | < 0.001 |
| No | 1145/5581 (20.5) | Ref | ||
| Diabetes | Yes | 287/1188 (24.2) | 1.20 (1.04-1.39) | 0.01 |
| No | 1157/5526 (20.9) | Ref | ||
| Obesity (BMI > 30) | Yes | 320/1569 (20.4) | 0.92 (0.80-1.05) | 0.22 |
| No | 1123/5141 (21.8) | Ref | ||
| Weight gain > 10 Ib | Yes | 232/942 (24.6) | 1.30 (1.11-1.54) | 0.002 |
| No | 974/4859 (20.1) | Ref | ||
| Anxiety in past 4 weeks (mild/moderate/severe) | Yes | 936/2691 (34.8) | 3.98 (3.51-4.51) | < 0.001 |
| No | 457/3867 (11.8) | Ref | ||
| Social Support | ||||
| 10-point increase | n/a | 0.91 (0.88-0.93) | < 0.001 | |
| Fear of cancer recurrence | ||||
| Low (< 14) | 1044/5512 (18.9) | Ref | < 0.001 | |
| High (≥ 14) | 400/1202 (33.3) | 2.14 (1.86-2.45) | ||
| 2-point increase (modeled continuously) | n/a | 1.24 (1.20-1.29) | < 0.001 | |
3.2. Primary analysis: association between FCR and perceived cognitive functioning.
Results for the multivariable regression model are presented in Table 3. The univariable regression model (Table 2) showed the unadjusted associations between PCI (FACT-Cog score < 60) and potential risk factors. The multivariable model showed that a 2-point higher FCR corresponded to an increase in odds of reporting PCI (OR = 1.15, p < .001), after adjusting for covariates (social support, age at diagnosis, years since diagnosis, marital status, education, weight gain, and anxiety). In addition, odds of reporting PCI tended to increase with increasing age at diagnosis (OR = 1.66, p < .001), years since diagnosis (OR = 1.34, p < 0.001), anxiety (OR = 3.54, p < 0.001), and weight gain (OR = 1.27, p = .02). In contrast, PCI tended to decrease with increasing social support (OR = 0.96, p = .01) and level of education (some college, OR = 0.95; college degree, OR = 0.81; graduate degree, OR = 0.77). When interaction effects between FCR and other covariates were tested, none were statistically significant.
Table 3.
Multivariable logistic regression estimating the association between FCR and odds of perceived cognitive functioning in women with any non-CNS cancers.
| Odds ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fear of cancer recurrence (2-point increase) | 1.15 | 1.10-1.20 | < 0.001 |
| Covariates | |||
| Social support (10-point increase) | 0.96 | 0.93-0.99 | 0.01 |
| Age at diagnosis (10-point increase) | 1.66 | 1.46-1.89 | < 0.001 |
| Years from diagnosis to FACT-Cog survey (5-year increase) | 1.34 | 1.21-1.47 | < 0.001 |
| Education | 0.06 | ||
| HS or less | Ref | Ref | |
| Some college/ Assoc. deg. | 0.95 | 0.76-1.19 | |
| College degree | 0.81 | 0.64-1.02 | |
| Graduate degree | 0.77 | 0.60-0.99 | |
| Weight gain > 10 lbs | 1.27 | 1.05-1.54 | 0.02 |
| Mild or worse anxiety | 3.54 | 3.04-4.12 | < 0.001 |
Multivariable model only contains variables included after model selection
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this is one of the few studies to examine the association of FCR with self-perceived cognitive functioning among a sample of US older female Non-CNS cancer survivors. Consistent with our hypothesis, our findings indicate that survivors with higher FCR report PCI more often than those with lower FCR.
Our findings on the association between FCR and perceived cognitive functioning are in line with previous studies. Past research has found that cancer survivors face uncertainty such as FCR that has the potential to elicit anxiety about the future [28,29]. Experiencing uncertainty is common in cancer survivors throughout their illness trajectory, but each individual’s reactions toward uncertainty differ. Some survivors may be intolerant to FCR and exhibit increased levels of anxiety, a known contributor to PCI [28,29]. This suggests that among cancer survivors, those most sensitive to FCR may experience anxiety resulting in increased vulnerability to PCI. Therefore, future studies that investigate the characteristics of survivors who demonstrate high FCR are needed. This understanding will help identify those at higher risk for PCI.
Our results also revealed that PCI is linked to increased age, heart disease, and weight gain. One possible explanation for this relationship is that cancer treatment regimens, including chemotherapy and radiation, are associated with incidences of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases [30,31]. Researchers have further noted that cancer survivors with cardiovascular diseases commonly incur cognitive problems, specifically in memory and attention [32,33]. Given that cardiovascular diseases are correlated with older age and weight gain, the current study findings are consistent with previous literature [34,35]. In contrast, we found that perceived cognitive function is positively associated with social support. It is possible that social support can alleviate psychological distress, thus leading to improved cognitive function [26,36]. Alternatively, having social interactions may have a direct effect on maintaining cognitive abilities and improve one’s perceived cognitive function. Future studies should include repeated measures of cognitive functioning among cancer survivors to further explore the dynamics of the relationships with age, weight gain, heart disease, and social support, along with mechanisms that might explain each relationship.
4.1. Limitations
The strengths of this study include the large total number of study participants with extensive demographic and clinical data. However, this study has several limitations. First, this study was cross-sectional so we could not investigate a causal relationship between FCR and cognitive functioning. Second, the measure of cognitive function was specific to the subjective perception of overall CI. Future studies need to include objective assessments of cognitive performance across several cognitive domain (e.g. memory or verbal fluency; executive function) to better understand how each specific cognitive domain is associated with FCR. Additionally, the study participants were predominantly Non-Hispanic White (92.6%). This could limit the generalizability of these findings. Future studies are needed that include participants with diverse/ethnic backgrounds.
4.2. Clinical implications
This study not only advances the knowledge of perceived cognitive functioning but is also the foundation of more effective interventions that will improve cognitive outcomes for Non-CNS cancer survivors. For example, psychological interventions that help cancer survivors relieve FCR and become more tolerant of such uncertainty to facilitate cognitive recovery. In the clinical setting, health professionals may provide therapy that helps cancer survivors reevaluate uncertainty as a normal part of their lives, alter their maladaptive responses to uncertainty, and empower them to participate in everyday activities despite this uncertainty [37]. In addition to this therapy, health professional may encourage cancer survivors with higher FCR to get involved them in social activities to offset FCR, which will ultimately promote their cognitive functioning [26].
5. Conclusion
Among older women with non-CNS cancer, those with higher FCR had poorer cognitive performance than those with lower FCR. This study contributes to the existing literature that suggests the importance of FCR as a factor associated with cognitive health. Future studies should focus on testing strategies to reduce FCR and their impacts on PCI in cancer survivors.
Acknowledgements
The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through 75N92021D00001, 75N92021D00002, 75N92021D00003 75N92021D00004, 75N92021D00005. The WHI Life and Longevity after Cancer (LILAC) study is funded by UM1 CA173642 and a grant to EDP from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.
Funding
EDP has funding for studies not related to this work from Genentech, Pfizer, Merck Foundation, Guardant Health, and Astra Zeneca. DV has funding for studies not related to this work from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01CA276222.
Footnotes
Disclosure statement
The author declares that (s)he has no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- [1].Miller KD, Nogueira L, Devasia T, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(5):409–436. doi: 10.3322/caac.21731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Bluethmann SM, Mariotto AB, Rowland JH. Anticipating the “silver tsunami”: prevalence trajectories and comorbidity burden among older cancer survivors in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(7):1029–1036. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-16-0133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Society AC. Cancer treatment and survivorship facts and figures: 2019-2021.
- [4].Kent EE, Park EM, Wood WA, et al. Survivorship care of older adults with cancer: priority areas for clinical practice, training, research, and policy. J Clin Oncol. Jul 1 2021;39(19):2175–2184. doi: 10.1200/jco.21.00226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Robb C, Haley WE, Balducci L, et al. Impact of breast cancer survivorship on quality of life in older women. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007;62(1):84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2006.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Yoo GJ, Levine EG, Aviv C, et al. Older women, breast cancer, and social support. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(12):1521–1530. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0774-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Ahles TA, Schofield E, Li Y, et al. Relationship between cognitive functioning and frailty in older breast cancer survivors. J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13(1):27–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2021.07.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Asher A. Cognitive dysfunction among cancer survivors. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;90(5 Suppl 1):S16–S26. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31820be463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Pergolotti M, Battisti NML, Padgett L, et al. Embracing the complexity: older adults with cancer-related cognitive decline-a young international society of geriatric oncology position paper. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11(2):237–243. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Lebel S, Ozakinci G, Humphris G, et al. From normal response to clinical problem: definition and clinical features of fear of cancer recurrence. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(8):3265–3268. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3272-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Vickberg SM. The Concerns About Recurrence Scale (CARS): a systematic measure of women’s fears about the possibility of breast cancer recurrence. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25(1):16–24. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2501_03 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Yang Y, Li W, Wen Y, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: a systematic review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2019;28(4):675–686. doi: 10.1002/pon.5013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Maheu C, Hébert M, Louli J, et al. Revision of the fear of cancer recurrence cognitive and emotional model by Lee-Jones et al with women with breast cancer. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2019;2(4):1–12. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Krok-Schoen JL, Naughton MJ, Bernardo BM, et al. Fear of recurrence among older breast, ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancer survivors: findings from the WHI LILAC study. Psychooncology. 2018;27(7):1810–1815. doi: 10.1002/pon.4731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Bergerot CD, Philip EJ, Bergerot PG, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence or progression: what is it and what can we do about it? Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2022;42:18–27. doi: 10.1200/edbk_100031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Simard S, Thewes B, Humphris G, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review of quantitative studies. J Cancer Surviv. Sep 2013;7(3):300–322. doi: 10.1007/s11764-013-0272-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Thewes B, Butow P, Bell ML, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence in young women with a history of early-stage breast cancer: a cross-sectional study of prevalence and association with health behaviours. Support Care Cancer. Nov 2012;20(11):2651–2659. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1371-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Van Dyk K, Ganz PA. Cancer-related cognitive impairment in patients with a history of breast cancer. JAMA. 2021;326(17):1736–1737. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.13309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Paskett ED, Caan BJ, Johnson L, et al. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Life and Longevity After Cancer (LILAC) Study: description and baseline characteristics of participants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(2):125–137.doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-17-0581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Design of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. The Women’s Health Initiative Study Group. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19(1):61–109. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00078-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Custers JA, van den Berg SW, van Laarhoven HW, et al. The cancer worry scale: detecting fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2014;37(1):E44–E50. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182813a17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Konings IC, Harinck F, Kuenen MA, et al. Factors associated with cancer worries in individuals participating in annual pancreatic cancer surveillance. Fam Cancer. 2017;16(1):143–151. doi: 10.1007/s10689-016-9930-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Wagner LI, Sweet J, Butt Z, et al. Measuring patient self-reported cognitive function: development of the functional assessment of cancer therapy–cognitive function instrument. J Support Oncol. 2009;7:W32–W39. [Google Scholar]
- [24].Dyk KV, Crespi CM, Petersen L, et al. Identifying cancer-related cognitive impairment using the FACT-Cog perceived cognitive impairment. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020;4(1):1–3. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Mayo SJ, Lustberg M, MD H, et al. Cancer-related cognitive impairment in patients with non-central nervous system malignancies: an overview for oncology providers from the MASCC Neurological Complications Study Group. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(6):2821–2840. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05860-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Yang Y, McLaughlin EM, Naughton MJ, et al. Social Support, social ties, and cognitive function of women with breast cancer: findings from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Life and Longevity After Cancer (LILAC) Study. Support Care Cancer. 2022;31(1):1–9. doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-07505-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(6):705–714. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Hall DL, Mishel MH, Germino BB. Living with cancer-related uncertainty: associations with fatigue, insomnia, and affect in younger breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(9):2489–2495. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2243-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Krok-Schoen JL, Naughton MJ, Bernardo BM, et al. Fear of recurrence among older breast, ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancer survivors: Findings from the WHI LILAC study. Psychooncology. 2018;27(7):1810–1815. doi: 10.1002/pon.4731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Bowles EJ, Wellman R, Feigelson HS, et al. Risk of heart failure in breast cancer patients after anthracycline and trastuzumab treatment: a retrospective cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(17):1293–1305. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Foglietta J, Inno A, de Iuliis F, et al. Cardiotoxicity of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17(1):11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Pressler Susan J, Jung M. Chronic heart failure with memory and attention dysfunction. JACC: Heart Fail. 2018;6(7):593–595. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.04.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [33].Von Ah D, Crouch A, Arthur E, et al. Association Between Cardiovascular Disease and Cognitive Dysfunction in Breast Cancer Survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2023; 46(2):E122–e128. doi: 10.1097/ncc.0000000000001083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Wang Y, Wang Y, Han X, et al. Cardio-oncology: a myriad of relationships between cardiovascular disease and cancer. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:9. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.727487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [35].Reddy P, Shenoy C, Blaes AH. Cardio-oncology in the older adult. J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8(4):308–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [36].Escalera C, Santoyo-Olsson J, Stewart AL, et al. Social support as a moderator in the relationship between intrusive thoughts and anxiety among Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2019;28(9):1819–1828. doi: 10.1002/pon.5154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [37].van der Heiden C, Muris P, van der Molen HT. Randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of metacognitive therapy and intolerance-of-uncertainty therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2012;50(2):100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2011.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.