PURPOSE: We sought to quantify the proportion of uterine cancer survivors who self-report poor physical function. We then sought to quantify the association of poor physical function with physical activity (PA), walking, and lower limb lymphedema (LLL), among women with a history of uterine cancer. METHODS: Physical function was quantified using the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) questionnaire. PA, walking, and LLL were measured using self-report questionnaire. PA was calculated using metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET-h week(-1)), and walking was calculated using blocks per day (blocks day(-1)). Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). RESULTS: Among the 213 uterine cancer survivors in our survey (43 % response rate), 35 % self-reported poor physical function. Compared to participants who reported <3.0 MET-h week(-1) of PA, participants who reported ≥18.0 MET-h week(-1) of PA were less likely to have poor physical function (OR 0.03, 95 % CI 0.01-0.10; P trend < 0.0001). Compared to participants who reported <4.0 blocks day(-1) of walking, participants who reported ≥12.0 blocks day(-1) of walking were less likely to have poor physical function (OR 0.07, 95 % CI 0.03-0.19; P trend < 0.0001). Compared to participants who did not have LLL, participants with LLL were more likely to have poor physical function (OR 5.25, 95 % CI 2.41-11.41; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Higher levels of PA and walking associate with a lower likelihood of reporting poor physical function. The presence of LLL associates with a higher likelihood of reporting poor physical function. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should be evaluated in future prospective studies.
PURPOSE: We sought to quantify the proportion of uterine cancer survivors who self-report poor physical function. We then sought to quantify the association of poor physical function with physical activity (PA), walking, and lower limb lymphedema (LLL), among women with a history of uterine cancer. METHODS: Physical function was quantified using the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) questionnaire. PA, walking, and LLL were measured using self-report questionnaire. PA was calculated using metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET-h week(-1)), and walking was calculated using blocks per day (blocks day(-1)). Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). RESULTS: Among the 213 uterine cancer survivors in our survey (43 % response rate), 35 % self-reported poor physical function. Compared to participants who reported <3.0 MET-h week(-1) of PA, participants who reported ≥18.0 MET-h week(-1) of PA were less likely to have poor physical function (OR 0.03, 95 % CI 0.01-0.10; P trend < 0.0001). Compared to participants who reported <4.0 blocks day(-1) of walking, participants who reported ≥12.0 blocks day(-1) of walking were less likely to have poor physical function (OR 0.07, 95 % CI 0.03-0.19; P trend < 0.0001). Compared to participants who did not have LLL, participants with LLL were more likely to have poor physical function (OR 5.25, 95 % CI 2.41-11.41; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Higher levels of PA and walking associate with a lower likelihood of reporting poor physical function. The presence of LLL associates with a higher likelihood of reporting poor physical function. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should be evaluated in future prospective studies.
Authors: Kerry S Courneya; Kristina H Karvinen; Kristin L Campbell; Robert G Pearcey; George Dundas; Valerie Capstick; Katia S Tonkin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Carol Sweeney; Kathryn H Schmitz; DeAnn Lazovich; Beth A Virnig; Robert B Wallace; Aaron R Folsom Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kristina H Karvinen; Kerry S Courneya; Kristin L Campbell; Robert G Pearcey; George Dundas; Valerie Capstick; Katia S Tonkin Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: B Gandek; J E Ware; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; J B Bjorner; J E Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplege; L Prieto; M Sullivan Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kirsten K Ness; Melanie M Wall; J Michael Oakes; Leslie L Robison; James G Gurney Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Nancy E Mayo; Lise Poissant; Sara Ahmed; Lois Finch; Johanne Higgins; Nancy M Salbach; Judith Soicher; Susan Jaglal Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-08-06 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Shirin M Shallwani; Anna Towers; Anne Newman; Shannon Salvador; Angela Yung; Lucy Gilbert; Walter H Gotlieb; Xing Zeng; Doneal Thomas Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.677