Kathryn E Weaver1, Corinne R Leach2, Xiaoyan Leng3, Suzanne C Danhauer4, Heidi D Klepin5, Leslie Vaughan6, Michelle Naughton6, Rowan T Chlebowski7, Mara Z Vitolins8, Electra Paskett9. 1. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. keweaver@wakehealth.edu. 2. The American Cancer Society, Behavioral Research Center Atlanta, GA. 3. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Biostatistical Sciences Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Hematology and Oncology Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 5. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Hematology and Oncology Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 6. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 7. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center Torrance, California. 8. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Prevention Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 9. The Ohio State University, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Females 80 years and older comprise 22% of the total U.S. survivor population, yet the impact of cancer on the physical well-being of women is this age group has not been well characterized. METHODS: We compared women, 80 years of age and older in the Women's Health Initiative extension 2, who did (n = 2,270) and did not (n = 20,272) have an adjudicated history of cancer during Women's Health Initiative enrollment; analyses focused on women >2-years postcancer diagnosis. The physical functioning subscale of the RAND-36 was the primary outcome. Demographic, health-status, and psychosocial covariates were drawn from Women's Health Initiative assessments. Analysis of covariance was used to examine the effect of cancer history on physical function, with and without adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: In adjusted models, women with a history of cancer reported significantly lower mean physical functioning (56.6, standard error [SE] 0.4) than those without a cancer history (58.0, SE 0.1), p = .002. In these models, younger current age, lower body mass index, increased physical activity, higher self-rated health, increased reported happiness, and the absence of noncancer comorbid conditions were all associated with higher physical functioning in both women with and without a history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Women older than 80 years of age with a cancer history have only a moderately lower level of physical function than comparably aged women without a cancer history. Factors associated with higher levels of physical functioning were similar in both groups.
BACKGROUND: Females 80 years and older comprise 22% of the total U.S. survivor population, yet the impact of cancer on the physical well-being of women is this age group has not been well characterized. METHODS: We compared women, 80 years of age and older in the Women's Health Initiative extension 2, who did (n = 2,270) and did not (n = 20,272) have an adjudicated history of cancer during Women's Health Initiative enrollment; analyses focused on women >2-years postcancer diagnosis. The physical functioning subscale of the RAND-36 was the primary outcome. Demographic, health-status, and psychosocial covariates were drawn from Women's Health Initiative assessments. Analysis of covariance was used to examine the effect of cancer history on physical function, with and without adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: In adjusted models, women with a history of cancer reported significantly lower mean physical functioning (56.6, standard error [SE] 0.4) than those without a cancer history (58.0, SE 0.1), p = .002. In these models, younger current age, lower body mass index, increased physical activity, higher self-rated health, increased reported happiness, and the absence of noncancer comorbid conditions were all associated with higher physical functioning in both women with and without a history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS:Women older than 80 years of age with a cancer history have only a moderately lower level of physical function than comparably aged women without a cancer history. Factors associated with higher levels of physical functioning were similar in both groups.
Authors: J David Curb; Anne McTiernan; Susan R Heckbert; Charles Kooperberg; Janet Stanford; Michael Nevitt; Karen C Johnson; Lori Proulx-Burns; Lisa Pastore; Michael Criqui; Sandra Daugherty Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Carla Parry; Erin E Kent; Angela B Mariotto; Catherine M Alfano; Julia H Rowland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heidi D Klepin; Ann M Geiger; Janet A Tooze; Anne B Newman; Lisa H Colbert; Douglas C Bauer; Suzanne Satterfield; Juliessa Pavon; Stephen B Kritchevsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Angela M Stover; Deborah K Mayer; Hyman Muss; Stephanie B Wheeler; Jessica C Lyons; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Elizabeth M Harding; Ann L Gibson; Huining Kang; Micah N Zuhl; Harsh Sharma; Cindy K Blair Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Arti Hurria; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; Jacob B Allred; Harvey Jay Cohen; Anait Arsenyan; Karla Ballman; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Aminah Jatoi; Julie Filo; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Jacqueline M Lafky; Gretchen Kimmick; Heidi D Klepin; Rachel A Freedman; Harold Burstein; Julie Gralow; Antonio C Wolff; Gustav Magrinat; Myra Barginear; Hyman Muss Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-08-26 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer W Bea; Scott B Going; Betsy C Wertheim; Tamsen L Bassford; Andrea Z LaCroix; Nicole C Wright; Jennifer S Nicholas; Steven B Heymsfield; Zhao Chen Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-05-09
Authors: Alexander R Lucas; Rhonda L Bitting; Jason Fanning; Scott Isom; W Jack Rejeski; Heidi D Klepin; Stephen B Kritchevsky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240