DOI: 10.31038/CST.2016113

Abstract

Objective: Fear of recurrence is a phenomenon associated with breast cancer survivorship that has been shown to cause pervasive and prominent distress, and poorer overall quality of life. Determining the factors that predict fear of recurrence is important for understanding its consequences on breast cancer survivors.

Design: This study examined whether certain demographic and medical factors influence and predict a fear of recurrence. The factors included time since diagnosis, age at diagnosis, the stage of breast cancer, and the number and average age of children.

Main outcome measures: Fear of recurrence was measured using the Concerns About Recurrence Scale. Over 3000 participants were recruited online with a final sample of 1116 breast cancer survivors.

Results: Five multiple regression models were performed to explore whether particular demographic and medical variables significantly predicted overall fears and worries associated with role, death, womanhood, and health. All five regression models were significant and analyses revealed commonalities underlying certain fears.

Conclusions: The study identified characteristics of women who may be at greater risk for chronic psychological distress and would benefit from ongoing supportive care.

Key words

breast cancer; fear of recurrence; demographics; children; time since diagnosis; age at diagnosis;

Introduction

Breast cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed diseases; currently it is estimated that 1 in 9 women in Canada will be diagnosed with breast cancer and that 1 in 29 women will succumb to the disease [1]. With the exception of non-melanoma skin cancers, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in Canadian women [1]. Fortunately, due to improvements in screening programs and treatments, death rates in women have decreased considerably since the mid-1980s [2,3]. The survival rate of breast cancer patients is now estimated to be 88% [1] and if diagnosed in an early localized stage, 98% [3]. The increase in breast cancer survivorship rates raises concerns for the quality of life experienced by the survivors. Quality of life in relation to breast cancer survivors refers to their physical, psychological, and social well-being in terms of their health after treatment [4].

Survivorship can be defined as corresponding to the period either following completion of active treatments – surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or hormonal therapy [5] or immediately following the diagnosis [6]. For our purposes, breast cancer survivorship is defined as the time since diagnosis until death [6]. Additionally, while the term “survivor” can refer to the diagnosed individual as well as individuals providing care, in this study, we are reserving the use of “survivors” to individuals diagnosed with breast cancer, and “caregivers” will be used to refer to individuals who are providing care and support to an individual diagnosed with breast cancer.

A breast cancer diagnosis is a lifelong burden. The diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are universally viewed as stressful and life-threatening experiences [7]. Moreover, there are long-term pervasive effects and residual symptoms, such as fatigue, neuropathy, and pain, even after successful treatment [5,8]. Other challenges that breast cancer survivors have to endure include the adjustment to life after treatment, having sufficient access to health services and support, and living with the fear of cancer recurrence.

Paradoxically, even though support is often needed more during the adjustment period, it is also often during this period that services provided by health care professionals are greatly reduced [5,9]. Breast cancer survivors move from very frequent to infrequent visits, resulting in increased levels of stress due to apprehension and health-related concerns [5,9]. Indeed, past studies have shown that the stress associated with breast cancer survivorship is an important factor to consider in evaluating survivors’ quality of life following treatment [5]. In fact, it has been reported that survivors have higher emotional distress and lower physical and psychological quality of life [7]. Although social support is often reported in the literature as a determinant of emotional well-being in breast cancer survivors, there is no extensive literature investigating the facets of social support that affect quality of life. According to Fong et al. [9], it is the quality of social support, rather than the quantity, that predicts emotional well-being.

Based on a sample of 157 female breast cancer survivors, Fong et al. [9] assessed their availability to social support and emotional well-being (i.e., depression symptoms, stress, negative and positive affect) at baseline (3 to 6 months post-treatment) and after one year (15 to 18 months post-treatment). They reported that quantity of social support significantly declined over the year, and it was associated with increased depression symptoms and stress. Social support quality generally remained stable, but for participants with declining quality of social support, they found that survivors experienced increased depression symptoms, stress, and negative affect. However, when modeled together, it was found that only change in social support significantly predicted change in depression, stress, and negative affect. In their study, the quality of social support explained an additional 4 to 6% of variance in the emotional well-being outcomes.

Aside from the availability of social support as a determinant of well-being and quality of life, a pervasive dread for survivors is the fear of cancer recurrence. Fear of recurrence is defined as the “fear or worry that cancer will return or progress in the same organ or in another part of the body” [6]. Fear of recurrence can be an intrusive and debilitating stressor for breast cancer survivors, potentially inducing high levels of stress due to the uncertainty of whether there will be a cancer recurrence or metastasis [6]. Previous studies report that approximately 33% to 56% of survivors, regardless of stage of breast cancer diagnosis, have moderate to high risk fears, which are associated with lower quality of life and psychological distress [6,7,10,11].

These fears primarily affect the survivors’ emotional and mental states resulting in debilitating stress and worry. Sometimes the fears are so overwhelming that the survivor has difficulty performing daily and social activities causing impairment that is disproportionate to the actual risk of recurrence [12]. Needless to say, fear of recurrence is a common phenomenon for a diagnosis of any type of cancer. Recently, Wanat et al. [13] conducted a meta-ethnography of 17 qualitative studies published between 1996 and 2014, on patients’ experience with recurrence. The studies included patients from a range of cancer types, with breast and ovarian cancers being the most common. After synthesizing the studies, Wanat et al. [13] identified six constructs that encompassed patients’ experience with recurrence.

The first identified construct was experiencing emotional turmoil following diagnosis, that is, the emotional impact of the diagnosis such as shock, fear, anger, devastation, and hopelessness. Wanat et al. [13] reported that 15 of the 17 studies found that the awareness of the possibility of recurrence did not reduce the emotional impact. The second identified construct was experiencing otherness, which primarily referred to the social impacts that a recurrence had on the patients’ existing relationships (e.g., sharing feelings and emotional and physical suffering with others, managing social lives). Next, it was found that seeking support in the health care system was found to be an important part of patients’ experience. This refers to the relationship between the patient and health care professionals and the access (and understanding) of medical information. The last three identified constructs were adjusting to a new prognosis and uncertain future, finding strategies to deal with recurrence, and facing mortality and pertained to balancing worries of disease progression and possibility of death with hope, regaining control over the cancer, taking responsibility for one’s health, and preserving emotional well-being. Wanat et al. [13] reported that common steps towards preservation of emotional well-being involved stopping activities that induced stress such as employment, and adopting activities that restored emotional balance such as connecting with nature.

In an effort to further understand the pervasiveness that fear of recurrence may have on breast cancer survivors, Bloom, Stewart, Chang, & Banks [14] interviewed 185 breast cancer survivors at two time points (time of diagnosis and again five years later when they were cancer free) to assess their quality of life in four domains: physical, psychological, social, and spiritual. The authors reported a significant decrease in worry about the future. Survivors who did not experience a recurrence or metastasis improved in their physical and mental well-being and 92% of the survivors rated their health as good or excellent after the five-year period.

Later research also corroborated the finding that longer time since diagnosis, although it cannot extinguish the fears and worries, could reduce the extent of fears and worries. In a study conducted by Kornblith et al. [15], younger survivors from 18 to 55 years old, scored significantly worse than survivors 65 years old or more) on a range of quality of life measures, including fear of recurrence. It was reasoned that younger survivors experience more distress due to the responsibilities that they may have as primary caretakers for younger children [15]. Parenting children while coping with breast cancer has been shown to cause lower well-being in breast cancer survivors [16] and young mothers especially, experience greater fears of having a recurrence. In an earlier study, we reported that breast cancer survivors under the age of 35 displayed greater levels of fear of recurrence in all domains [10]. Results suggested that being a mother was associated with greater fear of cancer recurrence, but the age of children (i.e., under or over the age of 18) did not impact the magnitude of fear.

Koch et al. [12] reported similar findings in their examination of fear of recurrence in long-term breast cancer survivors, that is, five or more years since diagnosis. Additionally, they showed that fear of recurrence appeared to be independent of cancer stage. However, most studies on fear of recurrence typically do not report whether the participant’s stage of diagnosis affected her level of fear towards a possible recurrence or metastasis, or whether the fear experienced depends on age at or time since diagnosis.

Recently, Cohee et al. [17] tested the theory that social constraints, that is avoidance of the person or discussion, minimizing concerns, and being critical or expressing discomfort negatively impact cognitive processing, which would ultimately affect overall quality of life and increase distress and negative affect. Based on a sample of 222 young, long-term breast cancer survivors (3 to 8 years post-diagnosis and 45 years of age or younger at time of diagnosis) and their partners, Cohee et al. [17] reported that cognitive processing, as defined by intrusive thoughts and cognitive avoidance, mediated the relationship between social constraints and fear of recurrence. They also examined a number of demographic variables, finding ‘current age’ in the mediation analysis for breast cancer survivors and ‘years of education’ for partners to be relevant predictors. In conclusion, Cohee et al. [17] reported that the demographic variables were not significant predictors for fear of recurrence in the respective mediation models.

While time since diagnosis has generally been reported to be associated with decreased fear and worry, there have been mixed findings in regards to the impact that age of breast cancer diagnosis may have on fear of recurrence. Some studies suggest that all survivors may experience fear of recurrence independently of age, while others, including our group, report that women diagnosed at a younger age tend to have higher psychological distress and lower quality of life which may lead to a greater magnitude of fear of recurrence [10,14,15,18]. Taken together, these findings demonstrate how common fear of recurrence is in survivors and its elusive nature.

Although fear of recurrence is a well-studied topic in the cancer survivorship literature and some correlates have been identified, we have yet to distinguish characteristics that may help identify survivors who are at high-risk for developing a significant fear of recurrence. Understanding this relationship is important because it will help inform whether sufficient services are provided to individuals to alleviate their fears, stress, and concerns. There has been some insight on potential interventions, however. Bower et al. [19] found that mindfulness meditation is efficacious in the short-term in reducing stress, behavioural symptoms, and proinflammatory signalling in premenopausal breast cancer survivors. However, as with other studies in the literature, the longevity of the effects is unclear [19], and more research is needed to prolong intervention effects and identify the parameters and characteristics and interventions appropriate for different cancer populations and age groups. The present study will aim to provide more insight on the determinants of vulnerable groups that would benefit from psychosocial interventions and allow us to develop interventions that guarantee the highest possible well-being and quality of life of breast cancer survivors.

Current Study

Our group has shown that breast cancer survivors who were diagnosed at a young age, had a recent diagnosis, or identified as a mother have a heightened fear of recurrence [10,14–16]. While we have not seen a relationship between the age of children and the extent of fear of recurrence [10], the influence of the number of children in this context has not been explored. As mentioned above, being a mother has been demonstrated to be an important factor in the fear of recurrence due to increased responsibilities such as raising a child; therefore, it is relevant to explore the impact that the number of children at the time of diagnosis may have. Moreover, to our knowledge, the impact of medical variables such as time since diagnosis and stage of diagnosis have not been explored in conjunction with these variables on fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors.

To address this gap, the current study examined the following demographic and medical variables as possible predictors of fear of recurrence: Time since diagnosis, age at diagnosis, stage of breast cancer, number of offspring, and average age of offspring, as well as their interactions. Based on the literature, we expected a greater fear of recurrence for breast cancer survivors who were diagnosed at a young age, had more than one child at the time of diagnosis, and were diagnosed with a later stage of breast cancer.

Measures

Demographic and medical questionnaires

The demographic questions included age, ethnicity, country of origin, occupation, income, education, number, and age of each child. The medical characteristics were age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, stage of breast cancer, and type of treatment received. The demographics variables for this study were chosen based on previous literature.

Concerns About Recurrence Scale (CARS [6])

This multidimensional scale was designed to determine to what extent fear of recurrence impacts breast cancer survivors. It also investigates what the sources of those fears may be based on a 30-item questionnaire. The CARS includes five subscales; the first subscale Overall Fear of recurrence is addressed with four questions pertaining to the frequency, potential for upset, consistency, and intensity of fears. These four questions are rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (I don’t think about it at all) to 6 (I think about it all the time).

The other four subscales were designed to measure the source of the fears. This section contains 26 questions with a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all), to 1 (a little), to 2 (moderately), to 3 (a lot) and to 4 (extremely). These four sub-scales include Health Worries, Womanhood Worries, Role Worries, and Death Worries. Health worries address the concerns about future treatment, emotional upset, and physical health. Womanhood worries address body image issues, femininity, sexuality, and identity. Role worries address roles and responsibilities in home life and within the work place. Death worries address the fear that breast cancer could lead to death. Higher scores on all scales indicate greater fears. This scale has demonstrated high validity and internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.87.

Procedure

Participants completed an on-line survey that was administered through iSurvey.ca. The consent form, which outlined the purpose of the data collection, was completed on-line. The survey took approximately 45 minutes to complete and participants could return to the survey at a later date if not completed. Various other questionnaires were included as part of the survey but for the purposes of this study, only scores associated with the Concerns About Recurrence Scale were analyzed in relation to the demographic and medical variables. This study was approved by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (#04-09-04).

Data Analyses

Multiple regression analyses were used to develop models that predict individual worries (health, womanhood, role, death) and overall fears based on the physical and medical demographic variables – time in years since diagnosis, age, age at diagnosis, stage of breast cancer, number of offspring, and average or median age of offspring. Prior to analysis, the statistical assumptions were reviewed for violations. Participant scores were deemed to be outliers if their associated Mahalanobis Distance was greater than the critical value of χ2 = 16.81 at p < .01

Due to multicollinearity, “age” was removed from the model. The five remaining variables met all assumptions and were entered in one step since we had no reason to expect that any particular variable would have a more or less impact on the results. All analyses were performed using SPSS, V22.

Results

Figure 1, plots A to E, show the frequency distributions associated with each demographic variable. The age of participants at diagnosis (Figure 1A) ranged between 25 to 75 years (M = 48 ± 9 years SD). The participants were diagnosed with stage 0 to stage 3 breast cancer (Figure 1B) with the majority identified with stage 1; stage 4 was excluded due to metastases to other sites. Years since diagnosis ranged from 1 to 28 years (Figure 1C). They reported having between one and five children at the time of diagnosis (Figure 1D) with average age ranging from 1 to 50 years old (Median and Mean age = 18 ± 10 years SD, Figure 1E).

Table 1 provides the overall results of each model, in order of level of significance and variance accounted for. The overall fears subscale produced the greatest strength, explaining 14% of the variance associated with fear of recurrence, followed by Role Worries, Womanhood Worries, Death Worries, and Health Worries; overall the combination of the four Worries was associated with roughly 4% of the variance. See Table 2 for a summary of the zero-order correlations.

Table 1. Overall model summary of multiple regression analyses on CARS subscales.

Subscale	F	P	R2 adj
Overall Fears	35.77	<.001	.135
Role Worries	4.66	<.001	.016
Womanhood Worries	3.28	.006	.010
Death Worries	2.62	.023	.007
Health Worries	2.29	.044	.006

Table 2. Summary of the zero-order correlations on CARS subscales.

	r
	Stage of Diagnosis	Age of Diagnosis	Number of Children at Time of Diagnosis	Average Age of Children at Diagnosis	Years since Diagnosis	Years x Age Interaction
Overall Fears	-.085 to .141 (p < .001)	-.191 (p < .001)	.004 (p = .448)	-.190 (p < .001)	-.253 (p < .001)	.091 (p = .001)
Health Worries	.025 (p – .200)	-.086 (p = .002)	-.009 (p = .388)	-.070 (p = .009)	-.031 (p = .153)	Interaction not tested
Death Worries	.046 (p = .063)	-.088 (p = .002)	.024 (p = .209)	-.070 (p = .010)	-.026 (p = .193)	Interaction not tested
Role Worries	.038 (p = .101)	-.118 (p < .001)	-.001 (p = .484)	-.099 (p < .001)	-.056 (p = .032)	.047 (p = .057)
Womanhood worries	.005 (p = .440)	-.082 (p = .003)	-.036 (p = .116)	-.072 (p = .008)	-.064 (p = .016)	.014 (p = .322)

Table 3 lists the demographic and/or medical characteristics that significantly predicted specific Worries. Neither the number nor the average/median age of offspring contributed significantly to any of the models, suggesting that fear of recurrence is independent of these factors.

Worries related to course of illness

Age at diagnosis had a negative relationship with all Worries and uniquely contributed to Death and Health Worries (see Table 3), suggesting that younger age at diagnosis is associated with more fears and worries specific to the course of illness.

Identity-related fears

Age at diagnosis and Time since diagnosis were found to be common negative predictors for identity-related fears, that is, Role and Womanhood Worries, indicating that more recent diagnoses and younger survivors experience greater fear of recurrence and exhibit greater worries in these specific domains.

As a follow-up test, we entered the individual predictors associated with Role Worries and Womanhood Worries as well as their interaction term; as shown in Table 4, these analyses did not reveal significant interactions and the individual predictors maintained their significance.

    Table 3. Significant predictors determined by the multiple regression analyses.

    * How long it has been since diagnosis of breast cancer in years

Overall fears

Overall fears measure the extent to which women worry about recurrence based on its frequency, intensity, consistency, and potential for upset. The analyses revealed that Time since diagnosis, age at diagnosis, and stage of breast cancer (see Table 4) were significant predictors. Stage of diagnosis contributed uniquely and positively to Overall Fears – higher stage equalled more fear. The results suggest that the more recent the diagnosis, the higher the fear. Moreover, individuals diagnosed at a younger age identified as having more overall fears. Lastly, stage of breast cancer indicated a positive relationship showing that a higher stage of breast cancer was associated with greater fear.

To follow up, we centered the two of the three significant predictors, time since diagnosis and age at diagnosis, and created dummy variables to represent each individual stage in the third significant predictor: stage. With the newly created variables, we created two-way interaction terms to enter in a simple multiple regression model with the original predictors. When accounting for the interactions, only two of the original three predictors remained significant (see Table 4). We also found an interaction between Time since diagnosis and Stage 3 (t = -2.77, p = .006) and Age at diagnosis and Stage 2 (t = -2.18, p = .029). For an illustration of the interactions, see Figure 2.

The literature suggests that fear of recurrence is independent of Stage (e.g., Koch et al., 2014); however, our results suggest that Stage is a significant predictor of Overall fears. To explore the relationship between Stage and the remaining four predictors, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis, with Stage entered before our set of predictors. Change statistics indicated that Stage accounted for 3.8% (p < .001) and our four predictors accounted for 10.1% of the variance (p < .001) in our model.

Table 4. Regression results after accounting for interaction terms for Overall Fears, Role Worries, and Womanhood Worries

* How long it lias been since diagnosis of breast cancer in years

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to determine whether particular demographic and medical variables predict fear of recurrence in a large sample of breast cancer survivors. In particular, we examined the relations between a selection of demographic and medical variables to fear of recurrence in a sample of first-time breast cancer survivors with children at the time of diagnosis. We hypothesized that the five demographic and medical variables entered into the regression analysis would have varying influences on fear of recurrence and would all be significant predictors of fear and worry in each subscale. While all the models were significant for each subscale, we also found common predictors for certain fears – suggesting that these were related to each other and belong to a broader class of fears.

In our earlier studies (see [10] and [16]), motherhood was a significant predictor of fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors. For example, Lebel et al. [10] reported that young mothers had a higher fear of recurrence than older mothers or women without children; later Arès et al. [16] found that mothers, more than non-mothers, experienced greater fears both in the short and long term. Arès et al. [16] also explored determinates of higher fear of recurrence in young mothers but did not identify any of significance. Our current study differs from these on a few essential points.

Although we did not intend to examine the effects of motherhood on fear of recurrence per se, based on the literature, we included two unexplored predictors that were related to motherhood that may influence fear of recurrence: Age of children at the time of diagnosis and number of children at the time of diagnosis. In the current study we also employed more stringent inclusion criteria. Notably, all the participants included in the current study were first-time breast cancer survivors without a prior diagnosis of cancer, with children at the time of the diagnosis. Our earlier findings did suggest that ‘age’ was an important factor to consider but was not explored thoroughly. In the current study, age at diagnosis was a common predictor for all subscales, demonstrating that the individual’s age at the time of diagnosis significantly affects fear of recurrence in all domains. This outcome is in agreement with the hypothesis that fears and worries are higher depending on the age of the survivor at diagnosis, that is, younger survivors being associated with greater fears.

In this study the examination of breast cancer survivors who self-identified as mothers more closely, with more stringent inclusion criteria, revealed some nuances. Specifically, age and number of children at the time of diagnosis did not influence the magnitude of fear that the participants experienced in regards to a cancer recurrence. Our results revealed that having children, or more broadly, ‘motherhood’, did not appear to have an impact on the level of fear experienced in first-time breast cancer survivors. Unlike our previous studies which used a younger cut-off and segregated age into categories, our analyses were based on the full range of ages, from 25 to 75 years old. Therefore, the importance and relationship of age and number of children at the time of diagnosis could unfold differently and reflect a finer tuning of the data. Building on our previous work, although mothers may experience higher levels of fear of recurrence [10], the results of the current study exemplifies the complexity of fear of recurrence and breast cancer survivorship, and the importance to consider additional facets and determinants such as cancer history, when exploring this construct.

Time since diagnosis was shown to influence fear of recurrence in specific life domains such as roles and womanhood. That is, participants with a recent diagnosis scored, on average, higher than other participants in terms of their distress towards a potential recurrence. This is not surprising as more recent survivors would have greater concerns, especially in the domains of their roles and responsibilities associated with being a woman. However, studies have shown that such fears and worries tend to dissipate over time [12,14] and supportive care, at least, in the short run, would be very useful.

Stage of breast cancer at diagnosis influenced the extent to which survivors worried about a possible recurrence. Although previous studies have suggested that fear of recurrence is independent of breast cancer stage [7], our data suggest otherwise and indicate that survivors with higher stages of breast cancer are associated with a heightened amount of distress. Higher stages of breast cancer are more threatening to the life of the survivor and have more negative symptoms [1]. This may evoke more uncertainties and worries in breast cancer survivors in regards to the possibility of a recurrence.

The characteristics that did not appear to be associated with greater uncertainties and worries in breast cancer survivors were the number and average or median age of children at diagnosis. In the study conducted by Kornblith et al., [15], more than 50% of the younger breast cancer survivors had children living with them (n = 61), while this was true for only 9% of the older survivors (n = 67). While this study suggests that higher fear and worry in younger mothers could be due to the responsibility of having younger children and being a primary care taker, we did not see this relationship in the current study, using a much larger sample. This outcome suggests that the number of children does not have an important impact on the fears of a mother.

These results are consistent however, with the idea that fears are present in all mothers due to the possibility of leaving their children regardless of their age [10,20] or number of children. In our study, participants had at least one child and at most five children. We reasoned that the number of children would be associated with more distress; however, our findings suggest that it is not the number or age of children that is an important generator of distress in breast cancer survivors who are mothers. In the study conducted by Adams et al. [20] they found that young mothers have the hard task of balancing priorities such as their health and treatment needs as well as the physical and emotional demands of children and family. In addition, communicating the illness to their children was shown to be a difficult task [20]. This may explain the increase in fear and worry in young mothers who are survivors as there is an additional stress to balance with their diagnoses when they have to consider their children in the process [20].

Limitations

One major limitation of this study is the use of the demographic predictor variable, average age of children at the time of diagnosis. This variable represents the average age of all children at the time of diagnosis, which means some meaningful data may be lost or misinterpreted. The impact of having children who are dependent (i.e., infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents) and independent (i.e., young and older adults,) are important factors to consider; however, using an average number may encompass both categories of children. Additionally, we examined and compared the range of ages of the children and the median age of children, to the average age of all children; however, the effects were identical regardless of the metric used. It may be useful in the future to rank the average age of the children based on the standard deviations of the mean of the combined ages. Future studies should also consider examining additional parameters, such as marital status of the mothers, health of children, and availability of caretakers, to fully explore and understand the relationship between motherhood and fear of recurrence.

Another limitation of this study is that this sample only represents English-speaking mothers from North America; in order to generalize this to a larger population a more representative and diverse sample should be used. This study was conducted through an online survey, and while this was earlier thought to limit the demographic to those who had internet access, there are now data showing that this is no longer an issue and online surveys actually reach a larger global group of participants [21]. Using survey methods as a tool for data collection has been shown to be a very reliable and valid method [21].

There are other demographic variables that may influence fear of recurrence that were not considered in this study. These variables include education, marital status, income, social economic status, and social support. Nonetheless, the most significant model found explained 14% of the variance in our data, which may provide some explanation of a causal mechanism between breast cancer characteristics and fear of recurrence.

Implications and Future Directions

While this study is consistent with the literature with respect to predictors of fear of recurrence, it has also demonstrated that while mothers (especially young mothers) have greater fear of recurrence, the number of children and age of children at diagnosis does not affect the amount of fear or worry of the survivor. This highlights instead the need for supportive care programs for breast cancer survivors aimed at protecting those who are at greater risk (for instance young mothers) for chronic psychological distress associated with fear of recurrence. These results have confirmed that younger survivors especially need more priority in this context and indicates the importance of sensitivity towards the individual characteristics of the patient in order to detect whether they are experiencing high emotional distress and the need for early interventions to assist them in managing their fears and worries.

In the current study, we explored several specific interactions in the regression models and our results suggest that there may be a relationship between particular stages of breast cancer diagnosis and certain medical variables. But, it is important to note that although these interactions were significant, they accounted for less than 1% of the variance (see part correlation on Table 4). The majority of our participants were diagnosed with Stage 1 breast cancer, we suggest that future studies explore whether fear differs as a function of stage, treatment, and number of recurrences in more advanced breast cancer diagnoses; and to determine if it is a moderator depending on the age of the survivor at diagnosis, demographics of the survivor’s children (e.g., sex, health, age), and the availability of a caregiver to provide care to the survivor as well as her children at the time of diagnosis. This would allow insight into the detailed levels of the variables tested that are important influences in fear of recurrence. Since fear of recurrence is so prevalent, determining the timing and the different ways to cope with fear of recurrence effectively is imperative to help alleviate fears in breast cancer survivors.

Acknowledgements and Funding Information

We would like to thank Avon Army of Women and Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance for their support of this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

• Canadian Cancer Society. Canadian cancer statistics 2015: Predictions of the future burden of cancer in Canada 2015.
• Canadian Cancer Society. Breast cancer statistics 2015.
• National Breast Cancer Foundation. Breast Cancer Facts.
• Ferrell BR, Grant M, Funk B, Garcia N, Otis-Green S, et al. (1996) Quality of life in breast cancer. Cancer Pract 4: 331-340. [crossref]
• Ganz PA, Kwan L, Stanton AL, Krupnick JL, Rowland JH, Meyerowitz BE, et al. (2004) Quality of life at the end of primary treatment of breast cancer: first results from the moving beyond cancer randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:376–87.
• Vickberg SM (2003) The Concerns About Recurrence Scale (CARS): a systematic measure of women’s fears about the possibility of breast cancer recurrence. Ann Behav Med 25:16–24.
• Waldrop D, O’Connor T, Trabold N (2011) “Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop:” Distress and Coping During and After Treatment for Breast Cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol 29:450–73.
• Ganz PA, Kwan L, Stanton AL, Bower JE, Belin TR (2011) Physical and Psychosocial Recovery in the Year After Primary Treatment of Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:1101–9.
• Fong AJ, Scarapicchia TMF, McDonough MH, Wrosch C, Sabiston CM (2016) Changes in social support predict emotional well-being in breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology.
• Lebel S, Beattie S, Arès I, Bielajew C (2013) Young and worried: Age and fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors. Health Psychol 32: 695-705. [crossref]
• van den Beuken-van Everdingen M, Peters ML, Rijke J de, Schouten HC, Kleef M van, ET AL. (2008) Concerns of former breast cancer patients about disease recurrence: a validation and prevalence study. Psychooncology 17:1137–45.
• Koch L, Bertram H, Eberle A, Holleczek B, Schmid-Höpfner S, Waldmann A, et al. (2014) Fear of recurrence in long-term breast cancer survivors—still an issue. Results on prevalence, determinants, and the association with quality of life and depression from the Cancer Survivorship—a multi-regional population-based study. Psychooncology 23:547–54.
• Wanat M, Boulton M, Watson E (2016) Patients’ experience with cancer recurrence: a meta-ethnography. Psychooncology 25:242–52.
• Bloom JR, Stewart SL, Chang S, Banks PJ (2004) Then and now: quality of life of young breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology 13:147–60.
• Kornblith AB, Powell M, Regan MM, Bennett S, Krasner C, Moy B, et al. (2007) Long-term psychosocial adjustment of older vs younger survivors of breast and endometrial cancer. Psychooncology 16:895–903.
• Arès I, Lebel S, Bielajew C (2014) The impact of motherhood on perceived stress, illness intrusiveness and fear of cancer recurrence in young breast cancer survivors over time. Psychol Health 29:651–70.
• Cohee AA, Adams RN, Johns SA, Von Ah D, Zoppi K, et al. (2015) Long-term fear of recurrence in young breast cancer survivors and partners. Psychooncology . [crossref]
• Ziner KW, Sledge GW, Bell CJ, Johns S, Miller KD, Champion VL (2012) Predicting fear of breast cancer recurrence and self-efficacy in survivors by age at diagnosis. Oncol Nurs Forum 39:287–95.
• Bower JE, Crosswell AD, Stanton AL, Crespi CM, Winston D, Arevalo J, et al. (2015) Mindfulness meditation for younger breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer 121:1231–40.
• Adams E, McCann L, Armes J, Richardson A, Stark D, Watson E, et al. (2011) The experiences, needs and concerns of younger women with breast cancer: a meta-ethnography. Psychooncology 20:851–61.
• Greenlaw C, Brown-Welty S (2009) A Comparison of Web-Based and Paper-Based Survey Methods Testing Assumptions of Survey Mode and Response Cost. Eval Rev 33:464–80.

DOI: 10.31038/CST.2016112

Editorial

Tobacco use, most people would say. Smoking tobacco increases the risk of developing many types of cancer and is responsible for approximately one-third of all cancer deaths. The association between tobacco use and lung cancer is well known; lung cancer occurs about 20 times more often in heavy smokers than in nonsmokers [1]. However, many lung cancers are diagnosed in never smokers [2], and most smokers do not develop lung cancer [3,4].

Aging, many epidemiologists would probably say. According to SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2012, cancer incidence increases dramatically with age [5]. The risk of being diagnosed with cancer is 1 in 128 in people under 30 years old, 1 in 10 in people between 30 and 60, and 1 in 3 in people over 60. The rise is more pronounced for the most common cancers. Breast, colon, lung and prostate cancers are over 150 times, 180 times, 600 times and 2,800 times more frequently diagnosed in people over 60 years old than in people under 30. However, cancer incidence decreases late in life for most cancers; men in their 80s have approximately half the risk of developing prostate cancer than men in their 70s. In addition, the risk of some cancers does not correlate well with age; brain cancer and leukemia are more frequently diagnosed in the first decade of life than in one of the following three decades [5].

The self-renewal capacity of the body tissues, some researchers might say. Tissues with a high self-renewal capacity give rise to cancer almost a million times more often than tissues without this capacity. The incidence of breast, prostate or lung cancer is approximately seven cases per 100 people [5], whereas the incidence of heart cancer is 34 cases per 100 million people [6]. Lung cancer in nonsmokers is about 10,000 times more common than heart cancer in smokers [5,6]. However, some tissues with similar self-renewal capacities have different cancer risks [7].

The accumulation of mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, many cancer researchers would conclude [8-10]. However, other cancer researchers would present evidence challenging this theory, e.g., sequencing studies showing zero genetic mutations in human tumor samples, and human studies linking non-mutagenic agents with increased cancer risks [11-16]. It has repeatedly been shown that the risk of developing cancer is increased by a variety of non-mutagenic factors, including hormone therapy (several cancer types) [17-19], drinking very hot beverages (esophageal cancer) [20-22], shift work that involves circadian disruption (breast cancer) [23-25], and exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (childhood leukemia) [26-31]. Carcinogenesis experiments in laboratory rodents have also shown that non-mutagenic factors can have a major impact on cancer incidence. Implanting foreign bodies of different materials under the skin of rodents leads to the formation of tumors; the shape of the implanted material, but not the composition, determines tumorigenesis [11,32-34]. For example, all mice implanted with Millipore filters with a pore size of 0.025 micrometers developed tumors, whereas none of the animals implanted with filters with pore sizes equal or higher than 0.22 micrometers developed any malignancy [32]. There is also consistent evidence that interruption of nerve connections alters cancer incidence and tumor growth. For example, the early phases of prostate tumor development are prevented by surgical interruption of the sympathetic nervous system [35]. Denervation of the stomach also suppresses gastric tumorigenesis [36].

It is known that cancer is ultimately caused by an uncontrolled cell proliferation that threatens life. The uncontrolled cell division of some cells leads to the accumulation of abnormal cell populations that threaten life by interfering with vital body functions [16]. However, despite decades of research, the main biological cause of such an uncontrolled proliferation remains to be elucidated. Not having the answer to the question raised in this Editorial is a major barrier to reducing the burden of the disease [37]. To be widely accepted, the answer should explain the striking differences in cancer risk by age and among tissues. It should also explain why non-mutagenic agents increase the risk of developing the disease. Cancer Studies and Therapeutics welcomes submissions addressing this key question.

References

• Doll R, Peto R, Wheatley K, Gray R, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ. 1994; 309(6959): 901-911.
• Sun S, Schiller JH, Gazdar AF (2007) Lung cancer in never smokers–a different disease. Nat Rev Cancer 7: 778-790. [crossref]
• Villeneuve PJ, Mao Y (1994) Lifetime probability of developing lung cancer, by smoking status, Canada. Can J Public Health 85: 385-388. [crossref]
• Bach PB, Kattan MW, Thornquist MD, Kris MG, Tate RC, et al. (2003) Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 470-478. [crossref]
• SEER Cancer Statistis Review, 975-2012. http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2012/results_merged/topic_lifetime_risk.pdf
• Oliveira GH, Al-Kindi SG, Hoimes C, Park SJ2 (2015) Characteristics and Survival of Malignant Cardiac Tumors: A 40-Year Analysis of >500 Patients. Circulation 132: 2395-2402. [crossref]
• Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B (2015) Cancer etiology. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science 347: 78-81. [crossref]
• Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW (2004) Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med 10: 789-799. [crossref]
• Vaux DL (2011) In defense of the somatic mutation theory of cancer. Bioessays 33: 341-343. [crossref]
• Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW (2015) The Path to Cancer –Three Strikes and You’re Out. N Engl J Med 373: 1895-1898. [crossref]
• Baker SG (2014) A cancer theory kerfuffle can lead to new lines of research. J Natl Cancer Inst 107. [crossref]
• Mack SC, Witt H, Piro RM, Gu L, Zuyderduyn S, et al. (2014) Epigenomic alterations define lethal CIMP-positive ependymomas of infancy. Nature 506: 445-450. [crossref]
• Versteeg R1 (2014) Cancer: Tumours outside the mutation box. Nature 506: 438-439. [crossref]
• Soto AM, Sonnenschein C. The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm? Bioessays. 2004; 26(10): 1097-1107.
• López-Lázaro M (2015) Stem cell division theory of cancer. Cell Cycle 14: 2547-2548. [crossref]
• Lopez-Lazaro M. Understanding cancer: 15 questions and answers. ResearchGate, 2016; DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4180.6323: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4180.6323.
• Beral V; Million Women Study Collaborators (2003) Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 362: 419-427. [crossref]
• Grady D, Gebretsadik T, Kerlikowske K, Ernster V, Petitti D (1995) Hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 85: 304-313. [crossref]
• Mørch LS, Løkkegaard E, Andreasen AH, Krüger-Kjaer S, Lidegaard O (2009) Hormone therapy and ovarian cancer. JAMA 302: 298-305. [crossref]
• Islami F, Pourshams A, Nasrollahzadeh D, Kamangar F, Fahimi S, et al. (2009) Tea drinking habits and oesophageal cancer in a high risk area in northern Iran: population based case-control study. BMJ 338: b929. [crossref]
• Islami F, Boffetta P, Ren JS, Pedoeim L, Khatib D, et al. (2009) High-temperature beverages and foods and esophageal cancer risk–a systematic review. Int J Cancer 125: 491-524. [crossref]
• Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. (2016) Carcinogenicity of drinking coffee, mate, and very hot beverages. Lancet Oncol 17: 877-878. [crossref]
• Schernhammer ES, Laden F, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al. (2001) Rotating night shifts and risk of breast cancer in women participating in the nurses’ health study. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 1563-1568. [crossref]
• Hansen J (2001) Increased breast cancer risk among women who work predominantly at night. Epidemiology 12: 74-77. [crossref]
• Stevens RG, Brainard GC, Blask DE, Lockley SW, Motta ME (2014) Breast cancer and circadian disruption from electric lighting in the modern world. CA Cancer J Clin 64: 207-218. [crossref]
• 26. Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, Dockerty J, Linet M, McBride M, Michaelis J, Olsen JH, Tynes T, Verkasalo PK. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br. J. Cancer. 2000; 83(5): 692-698.
• Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, Poole C, Kelsh MA (2000) A pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood leukemia. Childhood Leukemia-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology 11: 624-634. [crossref]
• Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, Draper G, Hagihara J, et al. (2010) Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer 103: 1128-1135. [crossref]
• Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Yan K, Lin X, et al. (2014) Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leuk Res 38: 269-274. [crossref]
• Grellier J, Ravazzani P, Cardis E (2014) Potential health impacts of residential exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields in Europe. Environ Int 62: 55-63. [crossref]
• Schuz J, Dasenbrock C, Ravazzani P, Roosli M, Schar P, Bounds PL, Erdmann F, Borkhardt A, Cobaleda C, Fedrowitz M, Hamnerius Y, Sanchez-Garcia I, Seger R et al. Extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and risk of childhood leukemia: A risk assessment by the ARIMMORA consortium. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016; 10.
• Karp RD, Johnson KH, Buoen LC, Ghobrial HK, Brand I, et al. (1973) Tumorigenesis by Millipore filters in mice: histology and ultrastructure of tissue reactions as related to pore size. J Natl Cancer Inst 51: 1275-1285. [crossref]
• Ferguson DJ (1977) Cellular attachment to implanted foreign bodies in relation to tumorigenesis. Cancer Res 37: 4367-4371. [crossref]
• Moizhess TG (2008) Carcinogenesis induced by foreign bodies. Biochemistry (Mosc) 73: 763-775. [crossref]
• Magnon C, Hall SJ, Lin J, Xue X, Gerber L, et al. (2013) Autonomic nerve development contributes to prostate cancer progression. Science 341: 1236361. [crossref]
• Zhao CM, Hayakawa Y, Kodama Y, Muthupalani S, Westphalen CB, et al. (2014) Denervation suppresses gastric tumorigenesis. Sci Transl Med 6: 250ra115. [crossref]
• Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, MacIntyre MF, Allen C, Hansen G, Woodbrook R, Wolfe C, Hamadeh RR, Moore A, Werdecker A et al. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1(4): 505-527.

DOI: 10.31038/CST.2016111

Editorial

Cancer represents one of the most threatening diseases in mankind. It is hazardous enough to endanger the health and lives of a vast population around the world, and constitutes the major cause of death in human. The clinicopathologic features of the disease vary greatly depending on the sites of origin, cell type, tumor staging and even gender, and the response to each treatment modality also differs among cancers and individuals. Establishing personalized treatment regimens for achieving the longest survival with supreme quality of life is the ultimate goal of cancer research and treatment. However, the treatment results of patients suffering from cancer are far from satisfaction because of heterogeneity in response to different therapeutic regimens by tumors. In this regard, more in-depth and long-lasting investigations are definitely needed for overcoming this embarrassing situation.

Year around the year, numerous investigators plunge themselves into the work of cancer research to unveil the most intriguing features of cancer, which provides impetus for innovating concepts and treatment strategies in the management of the disease. So far, a lot of progresses have been made in different aspects of cancer study. For instances, investigations on cancer microenvironments have disclosed some of the most mysterious parts in the pathogenesis and progression, therapeutic resistance, recurrence and metastasis of cancer; studies on molecular biology of miscellaneous cancers prompted targeted therapies by finding some specific marker proteins or molecules in the cancer cell signaling; understandings of clinicopathologic characters of different cancers greatly improved the strategic planning for surgical or non-surgical treatment; introduction of new concepts, strategies, therapeutic agents and special techniques such as induction chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, immnunotherapy and targeted therapies, etc. improved the treatment results and outcomes of assorted human cancers; development of new therapeutic agents added much to the multidisciplinary treatment of malignancies arising in different parts of the body. Lately, precision medicine is likely to be playing important roles in directing cancer research.

Based on our understandings and achievements that have been made in cancer prevention and treatment, it is reasonable to believe that we are getting closer to the goal of curing cancer. However, when we open arms to embrace the bright future of cancer research, we have to realize that there is still a lot to do and a long way to go before we can conquer this horrible disease. Recurrence, metastasis and resistance to various treatment modalities remain to be major challenges, which obstacle the treatment planning and strategic decisions for tumor control, and thus the treatment results and outcomes of various cancers, especially for tumors in the advanced stages. Besides, the mechanisms behind these sophisticated, uncontrollable and notorious biological behaviors are not fully understood. To solve these problems, a broad spectrum of topics and related issues have to be taken into consideration in cancer investigation, most important of which are novel concepts, new methods, new regimens, new therapeutic agents, and alternative approaches for early detection and intervention of cancer. These specific areas are all major focuses of Cancer Studies and Therapeutics (CST).

When pursuing cancer research, we do need a transparent and easy-reaching platform, such as an authentic open access scientific journal, for presenting, exchanging, searching and transmitting new ideas, concepts and methodologies associated with cancer prevention and treatment without any limitation and barrier. Meanwhile, it is necessary to adhere to the principle of open mind, open science and open journal. Our primitive motivation for launching this journal, CST, is to deliver the best communication on the fast moving, and continually evolving, global oncology landscape. To merit this peculiar motivation, we will be aiming at making this journal a real open access platform, capable of providing swift, worldwide, totally free access to the full content of every distributed article without any charge to readers or their institutions for access. Under this policy, readers are authorized to retrieve, read, download, copy, print, disseminate, or link to the full-texts of all articles published in CST.

To be frank, CST is a new member of the journal family relating to cancer research, and there is pretty much to do to develop CST into a scientific journal with high impact and reputation. Looking into the list of the editorial board members of CST, we immediately notice that they are all prominent experts with vast experience in different areas of cancer research, prevention and treatment. As the editor-in-chief, I am confident that, with the rigorous, tight and harmonious cooperation among the all prestigious editorial board members, we can make CST a prosperous and fast-going scientific periodical. It is anticipated, without any doubt, that CST will be becoming a real open access platform with truly open mind and open policy, for presenting, exchanging and circulating new ideas, concepts, regimens, and treatment modalities in the scope of cancer research.