Brent J Small1,2, Heather S L Jim2, Sarah L Eisel1,2, Paul B Jacobsen3, Stacey B Scott4. 1. School of Aging Studies, University of South Florida, Florida. 2. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 3. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cancer and its treatment are associated with long-term cognitive deficits. However, most studies of cancer patients have used traditional, office-based cognitive evaluations instead of assessing patients in their daily lives. Recent research in cognitive aging suggests that variability in performance may be a sensitive indicator of cognitive decline. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), we examined cognitive variability among breast cancer survivors and evaluated whether ratings of fatigue and depressed mood were associated with cognition. METHODS: Participants were 47 women (M age = 53.3 years) who completed treatment for early stage breast cancer 6 to 36 months previously. Smartphones were preloaded with cognitive tests measuring processing speed, executive functioning, and memory, as well as rating scales for fatigue and depressed mood. Participants were prompted five times per day over a 14-day period to complete EMA cognitive tasks and fatigue and depressed mood ratings. RESULTS: Cognitive variability was observed across all three EMA cognitive tasks. Processing speed responses were slower at times that women rated themselves as more fatigued than their average (P < .001). Ratings of depressed mood were not associated with cognition. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to report cognitive variability in the daily lives of women treated for breast cancer. Performance was worse on a measure of processing speed at times when a woman rated her fatigue as greater than her own average. The ability to identify moments when cognition is most vulnerable may allow for personalized interventions to be applied at times when they are most needed.
OBJECTIVE:Cancer and its treatment are associated with long-term cognitive deficits. However, most studies of cancerpatients have used traditional, office-based cognitive evaluations instead of assessing patients in their daily lives. Recent research in cognitive aging suggests that variability in performance may be a sensitive indicator of cognitive decline. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), we examined cognitive variability among breast cancer survivors and evaluated whether ratings of fatigue and depressed mood were associated with cognition. METHODS:Participants were 47 women (M age = 53.3 years) who completed treatment for early stage breast cancer 6 to 36 months previously. Smartphones were preloaded with cognitive tests measuring processing speed, executive functioning, and memory, as well as rating scales for fatigue and depressed mood. Participants were prompted five times per day over a 14-day period to complete EMA cognitive tasks and fatigue and depressed mood ratings. RESULTS: Cognitive variability was observed across all three EMA cognitive tasks. Processing speed responses were slower at times that women rated themselves as more fatigued than their average (P < .001). Ratings of depressed mood were not associated with cognition. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to report cognitive variability in the daily lives of women treated for breast cancer. Performance was worse on a measure of processing speed at times when a woman rated her fatigue as greater than her own average. The ability to identify moments when cognition is most vulnerable may allow for personalized interventions to be applied at times when they are most needed.
Authors: Rajni Banthia; Vanessa L Malcarne; Scott C Roesch; Celine M Ko; Helen L Greenbergs; James W Varni; Georgia R Sadler Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2006-05-16
Authors: Diane K Ehlers; Susan Aguiñaga; Josh Cosman; Joan Severson; Arthur F Kramer; Edward McAuley Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: D M Hann; P B Jacobsen; L M Azzarello; S C Martin; S L Curran; K K Fields; H Greenberg; G Lyman Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Rina M Sobel-Fox; Anna-Michelle M McSorley; Scott C Roesch; Vanessa L Malcarne; Starlyn M Hawes; Georgia Robins Sadler Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2013
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Nicole Rodriguez; Jonathan M Fawcett; Joshua A Rash; Renee Lester; Erin Powell; Connor D MacMillan; Sheila N Garland Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Meagan S Whisenant; Loretta A Williams; Tito Mendoza; Charles Cleeland; Tsun-Hsuan Chen; Michael J Fisch; Quiling Shi Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 2.760
Authors: Rebecca A Harrison; Noha Sharafeldin; Jennie L Rexer; Brennan Streck; Melissa Petersen; Ashley M Henneghan; Shelli R Kesler Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-07-12