Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 15

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Plasma levels of interleukin‐6 mediate neurocognitive performance in older breast cancer survivors: The Thinking and Living With Cancer study

Mandelblatt, Jeanne S., Small, Brent J., Zhou, Xingtao, Nakamura, Zev M., Cohen, Harvey J., Ahles, Tim A., Ahn, Jaeil, Bethea, Traci N., Extermann, Martine, Graham, Deena, Isaacs, Claudine, Jacobsen, Paul B., Jim, Heather S. L., McDonald, Brenna C., Patel, Sunita K., Rentscher, Kelly E., Root, James C., Saykin, Andrew J., Tometich, Danielle B., Van Dyk, Kathleen, Zhai, Wanting, Breen, Elizabeth C., Carroll, Judith E.·2023·Cancer

Abstract

Background: Immune activation/inflammation markers (immune markers) were tested to explain differences in neurocognition among older breast cancer survivors versus noncancer controls. Methods: Women >60 years old with primary breast cancer (stages 0–III) (n = 400) were assessed before systemic therapy with frequency‐matched controls (n = 329) and followed annually to 60 months; blood was collected during annual assessments from 2016 to 2020. Neurocognition was measured by tests of attention, processing speed, and executive function (APE). Plasma levels of interleukin‐6 (IL‐6), IL‐8, IL‐10, tumor necrosis factor α (TNF‐α), and interferon γ were determined using multiplex testing. Mixed linear models were used to compare results of immune marker levels by survivor/control group by time and by controlling for age, racial/ethnic group, cognitive reserve, and study site. Covariate‐adjusted multilevel mediation analyses tested whether survivor/control group effects on cognition were explained by immune markers; secondary analyses examined the impact of additional covariates (e.g., comorbidity and obesity) on mediation effects. Results: Participants were aged 60–90 years (mean, 67.7 years). Most survivors had stage I (60.9%) estrogen receptor–positive tumors (87.6%). Survivors had significantly higher IL‐6 levels than controls before systemic therapy and at 12, 24, and 60 months (p ≤ .001–.014) but there were no differences for other markers. Survivors had lower adjusted APE scores than controls (p < .05). Levels of IL‐6, IL‐10, and TNF‐α were related to APE, with IL‐6 explaining part of the relationship between survivor/control group and APE (p = .01). The magnitude of this mediation effect decreased but remained significant (p = .047) after the consideration of additional covariates. Conclusions: Older breast cancer survivors had worse long‐term neurocognitive performance than controls, and this relationship was explained in part by elevated IL‐6.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.34784

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 10.1200/JCO.21.00239 · DOI
  2. 10.1200/jco.18.00140 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/cncr.32663 · DOI
  4. 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.0827 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1002/pon.5376 · DOI
  6. 10.1200/jco.2016.68.5826 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Howlader N, 2019, SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2017
  8. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.1160 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.09.002 · DOI
  10. 10.1097/ncc.0000000000000896 · DOI
  11. 10.1200/JCO.22.00406 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2017.10.005 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/nyas.13299 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1038/nrc2073 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.3109/09540261.2013.864260 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1016/j.cyto.2021.155653 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/jnci/djac022 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2021.577769 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1007/s11682‐013‐9243‐2 · DOI
  20. 10.1200/jco.2013.54.2050 · DOI
  21. 10.1093/jnci/djv131 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/s41523‐022‐00456‐4 · DOI
  23. 10.1093/jncics/pkac052 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.bbi.2012.07.015 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.06.011 · DOI
  26. Wagner LI, 2009, Measuring patient self‐reported cognitive function: development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function instrument, J Support Oncol, 7, W32
  27. 10.1037/a0020141 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1177/014662167700100306 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Spielberger C, 1983, Manual for the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory
  30. Muthén LK, 2022, Mplus User’s Guide
  31. 10.1016/j.bbi.2012.05.007 · DOI
  32. 10.1007/s10549‐022‐06597‐1 · DOI
  33. 10.3390/cells11071164 · DOI
  34. 10.3892/ijmm.2021.4940 · DOI
  35. 10.1002/iid3.292 · DOI
  36. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.839065 · DOI
  37. 10.1007/s10549‐022‐06623‐2 · DOI
  38. 10.3390/cancers13112576 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2016.11.002 · DOI
  40. 10.1084/jem.20190418 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1016/j.bbi.2012.07.015 · DOI
  42. 10.1177/1099800419887230 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.tins.2018.05.001 · DOI
  44. 10.1007/s11764‐022‐01232‐w · DOI
  45. 10.1172/jci90609 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101297 · DOI
  47. 10.3390/cancers12123842 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.001 · DOI
  49. 10.1136/esmoopen‐2017‐000250 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1016/j.jgo.2021.07.011 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Mandelblatt, J. S., Small, B. J., Zhou, X., Nakamura, Z. M., Cohen, H. J., Ahles, T. A., Ahn, J., Bethea, T. N., Extermann, M., Graham, D., Isaacs, C., Jacobsen, P. B., Jim, H. S. L., McDonald, B. C., Patel, S. K., Rentscher, K. E., Root, J. C., Saykin, A. J., Tometich, D. B., Van Dyk, K., Zhai, W., Breen, E. C., & Carroll, J. E.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-04-25
Volume
129
Issue
15
Pages
2409-2421
ISSN
  • 0008-543X
  • 1097-0142
Cited by
15
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.