| Literature DB >> 31605514 |
Sheri J Hartman1,2, Lauren S Weiner1,2, Sandahl H Nelson1,2, Loki Natarajan1,2, Ruth E Patterson1,2, Barton W Palmer3,4, Barbara A Parker2,5, Dorothy D Sears1,2,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging research suggests that increasing physical activity can help improve cognition among breast cancer survivors. However, little is known about the mechanism through which physical activity impacts cancer survivors' cognition.Entities:
Keywords: anxiety; cognitive function; exercise; neoplasms
Year: 2019 PMID: 31605514 PMCID: PMC6914286 DOI: 10.2196/13150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Cancer ISSN: 2369-1999
Baseline characteristics by study arm among breast cancer survivors enrolled in a randomized trial of physical activity (N=87).
| Baseline characteristics | Exercise intervention (n=43) | Wellness control (n=44) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 58.2 (11.37) | 56.2 (9.30) | .35 | |
|
|
| .69 | |||
|
|
| Some college or less | 14 (33) | 11 (25) | —b |
|
|
| College graduate | 18 (42) | 22 (50) | — |
|
|
| Master’s degree or higher | 11 (26) | 11 (25) | — |
|
| Married or living with partner, n (%) | 32 (76) | 31 (71) | .68 | |
|
|
| .74 | |||
|
|
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 35 (81) | 37 (84) | — |
|
|
| Hispanic or Latino | 8 (19) | 7 (16) | — |
|
|
| .62 | |||
|
|
| White | 36 (84) | 35 (80) | — |
|
|
| Nonwhite | 7 (16) | 10 (23) | — |
| Body mass index (kg/m2), mean (SD) | 26.7 (6.20) | 27.3 (6.40) | .63 | ||
| Time since breast cancer surgery (months), mean (SD) | 30.3 (17.41) | 30.0 (16.08) | .99 | ||
|
| .79 | ||||
|
| Stage 1 | 27 (63) | 26 (59) | — | |
|
| Stage 2 | 12 (28) | 15 (34) | — | |
|
| Stage 3 | 4 (9) | 3 (7) | — | |
| Received chemotherapy, n (%) | 23 (54) | 23 (52) | .91 | ||
| Current aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen, n (%) | 31 (72) | 30 (68) | .69 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Physical functioning | 50.2 (7.49) | 51.8 (6.84) | .32 | |
|
| Anxiety | 54.8 (8.51) | 55.6 (6.95) | .65 | |
|
| Depression | 50.0 (8.16) | 50.7 (7.88) | .68 | |
|
| Fatigue | 52.5 (7.64) | 54.4 (9.17) | .29 | |
|
| |||||
|
| Brain-derived neurotropic factor, normalized values | 0.3 (0.19) | 0.3 (0.29) | .32 | |
|
| Homeostatic model assessment 2 of insulin resistance | 1.2 (0.98) | 1.4 (1.12) | .58 | |
|
| Log C-reactive protein (pg/mL) | 14.3 (1.29) | 14.6 (1.32) | .31 | |
|
| |||||
|
| Neurocognitive testing: processing speed (raw score) | 73.7 (14.55) | 77.7 (13.23) | .19 | |
|
| Self-reported cognitive abilities (T-score) | 46.6 (5.96) | 44.3 (5.27) | .06 | |
aA secondary analysis of the mechanisms underlying the effect of an intervention on cognition is displayed here. The main effects of the intervention on cognition were previously published in a study by Hartman et al [7]
bNot applicable.
cBiomarker values were log transformed before analysis to correct for right-skewed residuals.
Figure 1Differences in change from baseline to 12 weeks on measures of physical and psychological function by randomization group among breast cancer survivors enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of physical activity (N=87). Estimate: estimate of difference between groups for change in quality of life scores.
Figure 2Bootstrap mediation analysis of anxiety, physical functioning, and C-reactive protein self-reported cognitive abilities among breast cancer survivors enrolled in a randomized trial of physical activity (N=87). Solid arrow lines indicate a P value less than .10. Dashed arrow lines indicate a P value greater than or equal to .10.
Figure 3Bootstrap mediation analysis of anxiety, physical functioning, and C-reactive protein on processing speed among breast cancer survivors enrolled in a randomized trial of physical activity (N=87). Solid arrow lines indicate a P value less than .10. Dashed arrow lines indicate a P value greater than or equal to .10.