| Literature DB >> 35954612 |
Marta Pereira1, Célia Sofia Moreira2, Pawel Izdebski3, Alberto C P Dias4,5, Cristina Nogueira-Silva6,7,8, M Graça Pereira1.
Abstract
Depression and anxiety are common symptoms during and after adjuvant chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer (BC), with implications on quality of life (QoL). The present study evaluates the temporal relationship between anxiety, depression, and QoL (primary outcomes), as well as the impact of hedonic aroma (essential oils) on this relationship. This is a secondary analysis of a previously reported randomized controlled trial, with two groups: an experimental group (n = 56), who were subjected to the inhalation of a self-selected essential oil during chemotherapy, and a control group (n = 56), who were only subjected to the standard treatment. The hedonic aroma intervention occurred in the second (T1), third (T2), and fourth (T3) chemotherapy sessions, three weeks apart from each other. The follow-up (T4) assessments took place three months after the end of the treatment. Cross-lagged panel models were estimated in the path analysis framework, using structural equation modeling methodology. Regarding the control group, the cross-lagged panel model showed that anxiety at T1 predicted anxiety at T3, which in turn predicted both QoL and depression at T4. In the experimental group, hedonic aroma intervention was associated with stability of anxiety and QoL over time from T1 to T3, with no longitudinal prediction at T4. For women undergoing standard chemotherapy treatment, anxiety was the main longitudinal precursor to depression and QoL three months after chemotherapy. Thus, essential oils could complement chemotherapy treatment for early-stage BC as a way to improve long-term emotional and QoL-related adjustment.Entities:
Keywords: anxiety; breast cancer; chemotherapy treatment; depression; quality of life
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954612 PMCID: PMC9368225 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159260
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1CONSORT flowchart of the present study.
Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and balance per group.
| T1 (n = 112) | CG (n = 56) | EG (n = 56) | Differences between Groups d |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freq./M (SD) | Freq./M (SD) | Estimate, | |
| Sociodemographic variables | |||
| Age | 51.48 (10.34) | 53.50 (10.22) | 2.02, |
| Local residence: | |||
| Urban | 18 | 19 | −0.08, |
| Rural | 38 | 37 | |
| Marital status: | |||
| Married/cohabiting | 45 | 43 | 0.213, |
| Unmarried a | 11 | 13 | |
| Education: | |||
| Primary Studies | 40 | 32 | 0.72, |
| Secondary studies | 9 | 13 | |
| University degree | 7 | 11 | |
| Professional Situation: | |||
| Active | 1 | 3 | −1.14, |
| Not active | 55 | 53 | |
| Clinical variables | |||
| Surgery type: | |||
| Lumpectomy | 45 | 44 | 0.11, |
| Mastectomy b | 11 | 12 | |
| Cancer Stage: | |||
| T1 | 27 | 17 | 0.759, |
| T2 | 29 | 39 | |
| Axillary lymph node dissection: | |||
| Yes | 29 | 25 | 0.29, |
| No | 27 | 31 | |
| Number of Chemotherapy Cycles/Cytotoxic Drugs c | |||
| 4 cycles (AC) | 18 | 18 | 0.36, |
| 6 cycles (FEC-D) | 15 | 9 | |
| 8 cycles (AC-D) | 7 | 4 | |
| 16 cycles (AC-P) | 16 | 25 | |
| Breast Cancer Grade: | |||
| 1 | 7 | 6 | −0.01, |
| 2 | 35 | 37 | |
| 3 | 14 | 13 | |
| Months since diagnosis: | 2.79 (1.12) | 2.96 (1.32) | 0.06, |
| Psychological Variables | |||
| QoL | 71.45 (16.08) | 74.4 (14.79) | 0.13, |
| Anxiety | 6.91 (4.09) | 5.25 (3.53) | −0.28, |
| Depression | 4.44 (3.63) | 3.93 (2.94) | −0.11, |
Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Freq. = frequencies. a Includes single/separated/widowed/divorced. b Includes modified radical mastectomy, single mastectomy, and bilateral mastectomy. c AC = adriamycin−cyclophosphamide; FEC-D = 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel; AC-D = adriamycin−cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel; AC-P = adriamycin−cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel. d Estimated differences and significances were assessed through regression modelling. Appropriate regressions (with default links) were selected according to the dependent variable: normal (age), logistic (local residence, marital status, professional situation, surgery type, BC stage, and axillary lymph node dissection), ordinal (education, CT cycles, and BC grade), Conway−Maxwell−Poisson (months since diagnosis), and beta (QoL, anxiety, and depression).
Figure 2Intervention schedule.
Figure 3Three-wave structural equation theoretical model with autoregressive and cross-lagged effects for the longitudinal relationship between anxiety, depression, and QoL (up). Below, the model estimation for the control group and for the experimental group. Solid lines represent significant relationships and dotted lines represent no significant relationships.
Figure 4Neuro-psycho-physiological model of stress and coping for the control group. Adapted Transactional Model of Stress and Coping by Lazarus and Folkman [27]. (a) Appraisal process arising from interactions between the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, (b) the feeling/affect resulting from this appraisal and initiation of behavioral coping, and (c) autonomic and endocrine outputs from the hypothalamus, along with (d) downward signals to the brainstem and the spinal cord [44].
Figure 5Neuro-psycho-physiological model of stress and coping for the experimental group. Adapted Transactional Model of Stress and Coping by Lazarus and Folkman [27].