Kerri M Winters-Stone1, Mary E Medysky2, Michael A Savin3. 1. Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 2720 SW Moody Ave, Mailcode KCRB-CPC, Portland, OR 97201, USA; School of Nursing, Oregon Health and Science University, 3455 SW, US Veterans Rd, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: wintersk@ohsu.edu. 2. School of Nursing, Oregon Health and Science University, 3455 SW, US Veterans Rd, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 2720 SW Moody Ave, Mailcode KCRB-CPC, Portland, OR 97201, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Older breast cancer survivors (BCS) consistently report more functional limitations than women without cancer, but whether or not these differences remain when using objective measures of physical functioning and the correlates of these measures is unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing older (≥60 years old) BCS (n = 84) to similarly aged women without cancer (n = 40). Patient-reported physical function was assessed by the SF-36 physical function (SF-36PF) subscale and the Late Life Function & Disability Instrument (LLFDI). Objective measures included the short Physical Performance Battery (sPPB), usual walk speed (m/s), chair stand time (sec) and, grip strength (kg). Potential predictors included age, comorbidities, symptom severity, fatigue and skeletal muscle index (SMI; kg/m2). RESULTS: Patient-reported physical function was significantly lower in BCS than controls using SF-36PF (47.3 ± 0.1 vs. 52.9 ± 4.0, p < 0.001) and LLFDI (68.2 ± 10.5 vs. 75.0 ± 8.9, p = 0.001). BCS had significantly lower sPPB scores (10.7 ± 0.1 vs. 11.7 ± 0.5, p < 0.001), longer chair stand times (12.6 ± 3.7 vs. 10.1 ± 1.4 s, p < 0.001), and lower handgrip strength (22.3 ± 5.0 vs. 24.3 ± 4.4 kg, p = 0.03) than controls, but similar walk speed (1.1+0.2 vs. 1.1+0.1 m/s, p = 0.75). Within BCS, age, comorbidities, SMI, symptom severity and fatigue explained 17.3%-33.1% of the variance across physical function measures. Fatigue was the variable most consistently associated with patient-reported physical functioning and age and comorbidities were the variables most consistently associated with objectively measured physical functioning. CONCLUSION: Older BCS should be screened for functional limitations using simple standardized objective tests and interventions that focus on improving strength and reducing fatigue should be tested.
OBJECTIVES: Older breast cancer survivors (BCS) consistently report more functional limitations than women without cancer, but whether or not these differences remain when using objective measures of physical functioning and the correlates of these measures is unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing older (≥60 years old) BCS (n = 84) to similarly aged women without cancer (n = 40). Patient-reported physical function was assessed by the SF-36 physical function (SF-36PF) subscale and the Late Life Function & Disability Instrument (LLFDI). Objective measures included the short Physical Performance Battery (sPPB), usual walk speed (m/s), chair stand time (sec) and, grip strength (kg). Potential predictors included age, comorbidities, symptom severity, fatigue and skeletal muscle index (SMI; kg/m2). RESULTS:Patient-reported physical function was significantly lower in BCS than controls using SF-36PF (47.3 ± 0.1 vs. 52.9 ± 4.0, p < 0.001) and LLFDI (68.2 ± 10.5 vs. 75.0 ± 8.9, p = 0.001). BCS had significantly lower sPPB scores (10.7 ± 0.1 vs. 11.7 ± 0.5, p < 0.001), longer chair stand times (12.6 ± 3.7 vs. 10.1 ± 1.4 s, p < 0.001), and lower handgrip strength (22.3 ± 5.0 vs. 24.3 ± 4.4 kg, p = 0.03) than controls, but similar walk speed (1.1+0.2 vs. 1.1+0.1 m/s, p = 0.75). Within BCS, age, comorbidities, SMI, symptom severity and fatigue explained 17.3%-33.1% of the variance across physical function measures. Fatigue was the variable most consistently associated with patient-reported physical functioning and age and comorbidities were the variables most consistently associated with objectively measured physical functioning. CONCLUSION: Older BCS should be screened for functional limitations using simple standardized objective tests and interventions that focus on improving strength and reducing fatigue should be tested.
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: Anne Tiedemann; Hiroyuki Shimada; Catherine Sherrington; Susan Murray; Stephen Lord Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Marjolein E M den Ouden; Marieke J Schuurmans; Ilse E M A Arts; Yvonne T van der Schouw Journal: Maturitas Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: I Cantarero-Villanueva; C Fernández-Lao; C Fernández-DE-Las-Peñas; L Díaz-Rodríguez; E Sanchez-Cantalejo; M Arroyo-Morales Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Eric M McLaughlin; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Oreofe O Odejide; Areej El-Jawahri; Lihong Qi; Aladdin H Shadyab; Lisa G Johnson; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Juhua Luo; Stephen J Carter; Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano; Michael Hendryx Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Jennifer Y Sheng; Cesar A Santa-Maria; Amanda L Blackford; David Lim; Ashley Carpenter; Karen L Smith; Gary I Cohen; Janelle Coughlin; Lawrence J Appel; Vered Stearns; Claire Snyder Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Subham Mistry; Taimul Ali; Mohammed Qasheesh; Rashid Ali Beg; Mohammad Abu Shaphe; Fuzail Ahmad; Faizan Z Kashoo; Amr S Shalaby Journal: PeerJ Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Lindsay C Kobayashi; Ashly C Westrick; Aalap Doshi; Katrina R Ellis; Carly R Jones; Elizabeth LaPensee; Alison M Mondul; Megan A Mullins; Lauren P Wallner Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 6.921