Catherine R Marinac1,2, Sandahl H Nelson3,4, Lisa Cadmus-Bertram5, Jacqueline Kerr3,4, Loki Natarajan3,4, Suneeta Godbole3, Sheri J Hartman3,4. 1. Division of Population Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dana-1167, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. CatherineR_Marinac@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. CatherineR_Marinac@dfci.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Moores UC San Diego Cancer Center, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 5. Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine associations between dimensions of sedentary behavior and cognitive function in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Sedentary behavior variables were measured using thigh-worn activPALs, and included total daily sitting time, time in long sitting bouts, sit-to-stand transitions, and standing time. Cognitive function was assessed using the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Domain. Separate multivariable linear regression models were used to examine associations between sedentary behavior variables with the cognitive domain scores of attention, executive functioning, episodic memory, working memory, and information processing speed. RESULTS: Thirty breast cancer survivors with a mean age of 62.2 (SD = 7.8) years who were 2.6 (SD = 1.1) years since diagnosis completed study assessments. In multivariable linear regression models, more time spent standing was associated with faster information processing (b: 5.78; p = 0.03), and more time spent in long sitting bouts was associated with worse executive function (b: -2.82; p = 0.02), after adjustment for covariates. No other sedentary behavior variables were statistically significantly associated with the cognitive domains examined in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Two important sedentary constructs that are amenable to intervention, including time in prolonged sitting bouts and standing time, may be associated with cognitive function in breast cancer survivors. More research is needed to determine whether modifying these dimensions of sedentary behavior will improve cognitive function in women with a history of breast cancer, or prevent it from declining in breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: To examine associations between dimensions of sedentary behavior and cognitive function in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Sedentary behavior variables were measured using thigh-worn activPALs, and included total daily sitting time, time in long sitting bouts, sit-to-stand transitions, and standing time. Cognitive function was assessed using the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Domain. Separate multivariable linear regression models were used to examine associations between sedentary behavior variables with the cognitive domain scores of attention, executive functioning, episodic memory, working memory, and information processing speed. RESULTS: Thirty breast cancer survivors with a mean age of 62.2 (SD = 7.8) years who were 2.6 (SD = 1.1) years since diagnosis completed study assessments. In multivariable linear regression models, more time spent standing was associated with faster information processing (b: 5.78; p = 0.03), and more time spent in long sitting bouts was associated with worse executive function (b: -2.82; p = 0.02), after adjustment for covariates. No other sedentary behavior variables were statistically significantly associated with the cognitive domains examined in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Two important sedentary constructs that are amenable to intervention, including time in prolonged sitting bouts and standing time, may be associated with cognitive function in breast cancer survivors. More research is needed to determine whether modifying these dimensions of sedentary behavior will improve cognitive function in women with a history of breast cancer, or prevent it from declining in breast cancerpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Cognitive impairment; Sedentary; Sitting; Standing
Authors: Christina Bantoft; Mathew J Summers; Peter J Tranent; Matthew A Palmer; P Dean Cooley; Scott J Pedersen Journal: Hum Factors Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 2.888
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; Sureyya S Dikmen; Robert K Heaton; David S Tulsky; Philip David Zelazo; Jerry Slotkin; Noelle E Carlozzi; Patricia J Bauer; Kathleen Wallner-Allen; Nathan Fox; Richard Havlik; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dan Mungas; Jennifer J Manly; Claudia Moy; Kevin Conway; Emmeline Edwards; Cindy J Nowinski; Richard Gershon Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; Sureyya S Dikmen; Robert K Heaton; David S Tulsky; Philip D Zelazo; Patricia J Bauer; Noelle E Carlozzi; Jerry Slotkin; David Blitz; Kathleen Wallner-Allen; Nathan A Fox; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dan Mungas; Cindy J Nowinski; Jennifer Richler; Joanne A Deocampo; Jacob E Anderson; Jennifer J Manly; Beth Borosh; Richard Havlik; Kevin Conway; Emmeline Edwards; Lisa Freund; Jonathan W King; Claudia Moy; Ellen Witt; Richard C Gershon Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Leandro Fornias Machado de Rezende; Maurício Rodrigues Lopes; Juan Pablo Rey-López; Victor Keihan Rodrigues Matsudo; Olinda do Carmo Luiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kishan Bakrania; Charlotte L Edwardson; Kamlesh Khunti; Stephan Bandelow; Melanie J Davies; Thomas Yates Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Melinda L Irwin; Diana Lowry; Marian L Neuhouser; Jennifer Ligibel; Kathryn Schmitz; Ruth E Patterson; Graham Colditz; Fangyong Li; Linda Nebeling Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Diane K Ehlers; Jason Fanning; Alexis Sunderlage; Joan Severson; Arthur F Kramer; Edward McAuley Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 4.452