Asha Mathew1,2, Ardith Z Doorenbos1,3, Hongjin Li1,3, Min Kyeong Jang1,3, Chang Gi Park1,4, Ulf G Bronas1,5. 1. 14681College of Nursing, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. College of Nursing, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. 3. University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Nursing Science, Office of Research Facilitation, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Laboratory of Vascular and Cognitive Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer experience stress throughout the cancer trajectory. Allostatic load (AL), a cumulative multi-system measure, may have a greater value in stress assessment and the associated biological burden than individual biomarkers. A better understanding of the use of AL and its operationalization in cancer could aid in early detection and prevention or alleviation of AL in this population. PURPOSE: To consolidate findings on the operationalization, antecedents, and outcomes of AL in cancer. METHODS: Seven databases (CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched for articles published through April 2020. The NIH tools were used to assess study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria for this review. Although variability existed in the estimation of AL, biomarkers of cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune systems were mostly used. Associations of AL with cancer-specific variables were examined mostly utilizing population-databases. Significant associations of AL with variables such as cancer-related stress, positive cancer history, post traumatic growth, resilience, tumor pathology, and cancer-specific mortality were found. Mini meta-analysis found that a one-unit increase in AL was associated with a 9% increased risk of cancer-specific mortality. CONCLUSION: This review reveals heterogeneity in operationalization of AL in cancer research and lack of clarity regarding causal direction between AL and cancer. Nevertheless, AL holds a significant promise in cancer research and practice. AL could be included as a screening tool for high-risk individuals or a health outcome in cancer. Optimal standardized approaches to measure AL would improve its clinical utility.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer experience stress throughout the cancer trajectory. Allostatic load (AL), a cumulative multi-system measure, may have a greater value in stress assessment and the associated biological burden than individual biomarkers. A better understanding of the use of AL and its operationalization in cancer could aid in early detection and prevention or alleviation of AL in this population. PURPOSE: To consolidate findings on the operationalization, antecedents, and outcomes of AL in cancer. METHODS: Seven databases (CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched for articles published through April 2020. The NIH tools were used to assess study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria for this review. Although variability existed in the estimation of AL, biomarkers of cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune systems were mostly used. Associations of AL with cancer-specific variables were examined mostly utilizing population-databases. Significant associations of AL with variables such as cancer-related stress, positive cancer history, post traumatic growth, resilience, tumor pathology, and cancer-specific mortality were found. Mini meta-analysis found that a one-unit increase in AL was associated with a 9% increased risk of cancer-specific mortality. CONCLUSION: This review reveals heterogeneity in operationalization of AL in cancer research and lack of clarity regarding causal direction between AL and cancer. Nevertheless, AL holds a significant promise in cancer research and practice. AL could be included as a screening tool for high-risk individuals or a health outcome in cancer. Optimal standardized approaches to measure AL would improve its clinical utility.
Authors: Noreen Goldman; Cassio M Turra; Dana A Glei; Christopher L Seplaki; Yu-Hsuan Lin; Maxine Weinstein Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Sandra Scheuer; Nicole Wiggert; Tanja Maria Brückl; Yvonne Awaloff; Manfred Uhr; Susanne Lucae; Stefan Kloiber; Florian Holsboer; Marcus Ising; Frank H Wilhelm Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2018-04-22 Impact factor: 4.693
Authors: Asha Mathew; Amit Jiwan Tirkey; Hongjin Li; Alana Steffen; Mark B Lockwood; Crystal L Patil; Ardith Z Doorenbos Journal: Semin Oncol Nurs Date: 2021-09-03 Impact factor: 3.527
Authors: Azzurra Irelli; Jessica Ranieri; Maria Maddalena Sirufo; Francesca De Pietro; Pamela Casalena; Lia Ginaldi; Katia Cannita; Dina Di Giacomo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Seohyuk Lee; Chao Ma; Sui Zhang; Fang-Shu Ou; Tiffany M Bainter; Donna Niedzwiecki; Leonard B Saltz; Robert J Mayer; Renaud Whittom; Alexander Hantel; Al Benson; Daniel Atienza; Hedy Kindler; Cary P Gross; Melinda L Irwin; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Charles S Fuchs Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Samilia Obeng-Gyasi; Yaming Li; William E Carson; Sarah Reisenger; Carolyn J Presley; Peter G Shields; David P Carbone; DuyKhanh P Ceppa; Ruth C Carlos; Barbara L Andersen Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Samilia Obeng-Gyasi; Noah Graham; Shaji Kumar; Ju-Whei Lee; Susanna Jacobus; Matthias Weiss; David Cella; Fengmin Zhao; Edward H Ip; Nathaniel O'Connell; Fangxin Hong; Devin J Peipert; IIana F Gareen; Lava R Timsina; Robert Gray; Lynne I Wagner; Ruth C Carlos Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 9.812