Browsing by Author "VanMeter, John W."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cancer-Related Cognitive Outcomes Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors in the Thinking and Living With Cancer Study
    (ASCO, 2018-11) Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.; Small, Brent J.; Luta, Gheorghe; Hurria, Arti; Jim, Heather; McDonald, Brenna C.; Graham, Deena; Zhou, Xingtao; Clapp, Jonathan; Zhai, Wanting; Breen, Elizabeth; Carroll, Judith E.; Denduluri, Neelima; Dilawari, Asma; Extermann, Martine; Isaacs, Claudine; Jacobsen, Paul B.; Kobayashi, Lindsay C.; Holohan Nudelman, Kelly; Root, James; Stern, Robert A.; Tometich, Danielle; Turner, Raymond; VanMeter, John W.; Saykin, Andrew J.; Ahles, Tim; Radiology and Imaging Sciences, School of Medicine
    Purpose To determine treatment and aging-related effects on longitudinal cognitive function in older breast cancer survivors. Methods Newly diagnosed nonmetastatic breast cancer survivors (n = 344) and matched controls without cancer (n = 347) 60 years of age and older without dementia or neurologic disease were recruited between August 2010 and December 2015. Data collection occurred during presystemic treatment/control enrollment and at 12 and 24 months through biospecimens; surveys; self-reported Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function; and neuropsychological tests that measured attention, processing speed, and executive function (APE) and learning and memory (LM). Linear mixed-effects models tested two-way interactions of treatment group (control, chemotherapy with or without hormonal therapy, and hormonal therapy) and time and explored three-way interactions of ApoE (ε4+ v not) by group by time; covariates included baseline age, frailty, race, and cognitive reserve. Results Survivors and controls were 60 to 98 years of age, were well educated, and had similar baseline cognitive scores. Treatment was related to longitudinal cognition scores, with survivors who received chemotherapy having increasingly worse APE scores (P = .05) and those initiating hormonal therapy having lower LM scores at 12 months (P = .03) than other groups. These group-by-time differences varied by ApoE genotype, where only ε4+ survivors receiving hormone therapy had short-term decreases in adjusted LM scores (three-way interaction P = .03). For APE, the three-way interaction was not significant (P = .14), but scores were significantly lower for ε4+ survivors exposed to chemotherapy (−0.40; 95% CI, −0.79 to −0.01) at 24 months than ε4+ controls (0.01; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.18; P < .05). Increasing age was associated with lower baseline scores on all cognitive measures (P < .001); frailty was associated with baseline APE and self-reported decline (P < .001). Conclusion Breast cancer systemic treatment and aging-related phenotypes and genotypes are associated with longitudinal decreases in cognitive function scores in older survivors. These data could inform treatment decision making and survivorship care planning.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cognitive effects of cancer and its treatments at the intersection of aging: what do we know; what do we need to know?
    (Elsevier, 2013-12) Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.; Hurria, Arti; McDonald, Brenna C.; Saykin, Andrew J.; Stern, Robert A.; VanMeter, John W.; McGuckin, Meghan; Traina, Tiffani; Denduluri, Neelima; Turner, Scott; Howard, Darlene; Jacobsen, Paul B.; Ahles, Tim; Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, IU School of Medicine
    There is a fairly consistent, albeit non-universal body of research documenting cognitive declines after cancer and its treatments. While few of these studies have included subjects aged 65 years and older, it is logical to expect that older patients are at risk of cognitive decline. Here, we use breast cancer as an exemplar disease for inquiry into the intersection of aging and cognitive effects of cancer and its therapies. There are a striking number of common underlying potential biological risks and pathways for the development of cancer, cancer-related cognitive declines, and aging processes, including the development of a frail phenotype. Candidate shared pathways include changes in hormonal milieu, inflammation, oxidative stress, DNA damage and compromised DNA repair, genetic susceptibility, decreased brain blood flow or disruption of the blood-brain barrier, direct neurotoxicity, decreased telomere length, and cell senescence. There also are similar structure and functional changes seen in brain imaging studies of cancer patients and those seen with "normal" aging and Alzheimer's disease. Disentangling the role of these overlapping processes is difficult since they require aged animal models and large samples of older human subjects. From what we do know, frailty and its low cognitive reserve seem to be a clinically useful marker of risk for cognitive decline after cancer and its treatments. This and other results from this review suggest the value of geriatric assessments to identify older patients at the highest risk of cognitive decline. Further research is needed to understand the interactions between aging, genetic predisposition, lifestyle factors, and frailty phenotypes to best identify the subgroups of older patients at greatest risk for decline and to develop behavioral and pharmacological interventions targeting this group. We recommend that basic science and population trials be developed specifically for older hosts with intermediate endpoints of relevance to this group, including cognitive function and trajectories of frailty. Clinicians and their older patients can advance the field by active encouragement of and participation in research designed to improve the care and outcomes of the growing population of older cancer patients.