Search

IntroductionCancer related cognitive decline is a common long-term side effect of cancer and its treatments among breast cancer survivors. Physical activity is a modifiable risk factor related to cognitive decline. However, existing research lacks consensus regarding the relationship between cognition and exercise as well as the impact of cancer treatments on this relationship. Baseline data from an ongoing randomized clinical trial was utilized to examine the relationship between self-reported and objectively measured cognition with physical activity. Exploratory analyses examined cancer treatments as potential moderators.MethodsBreast cancer survivors (N = 253) completed a battery of neurocognitive tests, the PROMIS Cognitive abilities questionnaire, medical charts abstracted for treatment information, and wore an ActiGraph accelerometer at the waist for 7 days. Data were analyzed using multiple linear regression models.ResultsParticipants were on average 58.5 (SD = 8.88) years old, diagnosed 3 years prior to enrollment (SD = 1.27) with 57% treated with chemotherapy and 80% receiving hormone therapy at baseline. Better self-reported cognitive ability was significantly associated with greater min of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA; β = 0.070, se = 0.028, p = 0.012). There were no significant associations with any objectively measured cognitive domains. Time since diagnosis (years) was a significant moderator of MVPA and Processing Speed (β = −0.103, se = 0.043, p = 0.017). Treatment with chemotherapy and/or hormones did not significantly moderate the relationship between MVPA and any of the cognitive measures or domains.ConclusionFindings suggest that physical activity is related to self-reported cognition but not objectively measured cognition. Greater physical activity was associated with faster processing speed in participants closer in time to their cancer diagnosis. These results emphasize the need for more research to understand when cancer survivors may benefit from physical activity and what aspects of cognition may be improved.

Background Muscle density is inversely associated with all‐cause mortality, but associations with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk are not well understood. This study evaluated the association between muscle density and muscle area and incident total CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke in diverse men and women. Methods and Results Adult participants (N=1869) in the Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Ancillary Body Composition Study underwent computer tomography scans of the L2‐L4 region of the abdomen. Muscle was quantified by density (Hounsfield units) and area in cm2. Sex‐stratified Cox proportional hazard models assessed associations between incident total CVD, incident CHD, and incident stroke across sex‐specific percentiles of muscle area and density, which were entered simultaneously into the model. Mean age for men and women at baseline were 64.1 and 65.1 years, respectively, and median follow‐up time was 10.3 years. For men, associations between muscle density and incident CVD were inverse but not significant in fully adjusted models (P trend=0.15). However, there was an inverse association between density and CHD (P trend=0.02; HR, 0.26 for 95th versus 10th percentile), and no association with stroke (P trend=0.78). Conversely, for men, there was a strong positive association between muscle area and incident CVD (HR, 4.19 for 95th versus 10th percentile; P trend

Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person’s functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking.Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers’ knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes.Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities.Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease.

Abstract Background Most HIV cure-related studies involve interrupting antiretroviral treatment to assess the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions – also known as analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs). ATIs imply the risk of passing HIV to sexual partners due to the loss of undetectable HIV status. There has been a notable lack of attention paid to perceptions of ATIs among racial, ethnic, sex and gender minorities, and HIV serodifferent couples. These populations are among those most impacted by HIV in the United States. Future HIV cure research paradigms should equitably include considerations from these groups. Methods From August – October 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with 10 racial, ethnic, sex, and gender minority HIV serodifferent couples in geographically diverse regions of the United States to understand their perspectives about ATIs and partner protection measures to prevent secondary HIV transmissions because of participation in ATI studies. We used framework analysis to analyze the qualitative data. Results Of the 10 couples recruited, four identified as a gay couple, two as a gay and bisexual couple, two as a heterosexual couple, one as a gay and queer couple, and one as a queer couple. We found that HIV serodifferent couples in our study viewed ATIs as contradicting HIV treatment adherence messages. Couples expressed discomfort around ATIs in HIV cure research. They were concerned with the return of HIV detectability and worried ATIs might result in secondary HIV transmission. Participants were strongly in favor of using a range of partner protection measures during ATIs that included PrEP, HIV risk reduction counseling, and alternatives for penetrative sex practices. Couples also recommended that sex partners be consulted or involved as part of ATI trials. Conclusions Our findings highlight new potential opportunities and strategies to mitigate risk of HIV transmission during ATIs among key groups historically under-represented in HIV cure research. Findings also underscore the relational aspects of ATI trials. We provide preliminary considerations for planning ATI trials with diverse HIV serodifferent partners. Future studies should continue to explore these issues among other types of partnerships, cultures, and socio-cultural settings.

BackgroundSedentary behavior among breast cancer survivors is associated with increased risk of poor physical function and worse quality of life. While moderate to vigorous physical activity can improve outcomes for cancer survivors, many are unable to engage in that intensity of physical activity. Decreasing sitting time may be a more feasible behavioral target to potentially mitigate the impact of cancer and its treatments. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary impact of an intervention to reduce sitting time on changes to physical function and quality of life in breast cancer survivors, from baseline to a 3-month follow-up. MethodsFemale breast cancer survivors with self-reported difficulties with physical function received one-on-one, in-person personalized health coaching sessions aimed at reducing sitting time. At baseline and follow-up, participants wore the activPAL (thigh-worn accelerometer; PAL Technologies) for 3 months and completed physical function tests (4-Meter Walk Test, Timed Up and Go, and 30-Second Chair Stand) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) self-reported outcomes. Changes in physical function and sedentary behavior outcomes were assessed by linear mixed models. ResultsOn average, participants (n=20) were aged 64.5 (SD 9.4) years; had a BMI of 30.4 (SD 4.5) kg/m2; and identified as Black or African American (n=3, 15%), Hispanic or Latina (n=4, 20%), and non-Hispanic White (n=14, 55%). Average time since diagnosis was 5.8 (SD 2.2) years with participants receiving chemotherapy (n=8, 40%), radiotherapy (n=18, 90%), or endocrine therapy (n=17, 85%). The intervention led to significant reductions in sitting time: activPAL average daily sitting time decreased from 645.7 (SD 72.4) to 532.7 (SD 142.1; β=–112.9; P=.001) minutes and average daily long sitting bouts (bout length ≥20 min) decreased from 468.3 (SD 94.9) to 366.9 (SD 150.4; β=–101.4; P=.002) minutes. All physical function tests had significant improvements: on average, 4-Meter Walk Test performance decreased from 4.23 (SD 0.95) to 3.61 (SD 2.53; β=–.63; P=.002) seconds, Timed Up and Go performance decreased from 10.30 (SD 3.32) to 8.84 (SD 1.58; β=–1.46; P=.003) seconds, and 30-Second Chair Stand performance increased from 9.75 (SD 2.81) to 13.20 completions (SD 2.53; β=3.45; P