2020
DOI: 10.1002/pon.5433
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Associations of functional, psychosocial, and medical factors with cognitive impairment in older, chemotherapy naïve patients with early breast cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4 Cognitive problems are among the most concerning of these symptoms, potentially leading to decrements in functioning and social and emotional well-being. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Despite decades of recognition of cognitive problems after breast cancer and its therapy, underlying mechanisms remain elusive. [15][16][17] One candidate mechanism is inflammation driven by cellular damage occurring with cancer and its therapies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 Cognitive problems are among the most concerning of these symptoms, potentially leading to decrements in functioning and social and emotional well-being. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Despite decades of recognition of cognitive problems after breast cancer and its therapy, underlying mechanisms remain elusive. [15][16][17] One candidate mechanism is inflammation driven by cellular damage occurring with cancer and its therapies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four studies (Lange et al, 2016; Mandelblatt et al, 2016, 2018; Small et al, 2022) were longitudinal and three (Crouch, Champion, Unverzagt, et al, 2022; Nakamura et al, 2020; Zhang et al, 2020) cross‐sectional. Five out of seven studies were published in the last 5 years (Crouch, Champion, Unverzagt, et al, 2022; Mandelblatt et al, 2018; Nakamura et al, 2020; Small et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2020). They included data from 2652 older female BCS with a mean age of 67.8 years.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most studies ( n = 5) were from the USA (Crouch, Champion, Unverzagt, et al, 2022; Mandelblatt et al, 2016, 2018; Small et al, 2022), the remaining studies were from China (Zhang et al, 2020) and France (Lange et al, 2016). The study period ranged from 1 to 9 years, with the shortest (Lange et al, 2016) from 2016 to 2017 and the longest (Nakamura et al, 2020) from 2009 to 2018. The follow‐up period ranged from 1 (Mandelblatt et al, 2018) to 4.1 years (Mandelblatt et al, 2016).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations