Associations of seven measures of biological age acceleration with frailty and all-cause mortality among adult survivors of childhood cancer in the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.

Survivors of childhood cancer may experience accelerated biological aging, resulting in premature frailty and death. We used seven measures of biological age in the St. Jude Lifetime (SJLIFE) Cohort to compare biological age acceleration between the SJLIFE Cohort and the third United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey controls, explore trajectories of biological age according to cancer treatment and type, and test associations of biological age acceleration with frailty and death (mean follow-up of 26.5 years) among survivors. Survivors of cancer aged 5% faster per year and measured, on average, 0.6-6.44 years biologically older compared to controls and 5-16 years biologically older compared to age-matched individuals at the population level. Survivors treated with hematopoietic cell transplant and vinca alkaloid chemotherapy evidenced the fastest trajectories of biological aging. Biologically, older and faster-aging survivors consistently and robustly had a higher risk of frailty and died earlier than those with slower biological aging, suggesting a potential opportunity to intervene on excess aging.

Affective Science Research: Perspectives and Priorities from the National Institutes of Health.

Affective science is a broad and burgeoning field, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) support research on a similarly broad range of topics. Across NIH, funding is available for basic, translational, and intervention research, including research in non-human animals, healthy populations, and those with or at risk for disease. Multiple NIH Institutes and Centers have specific programs devoted to topics within the affective science umbrella. Here, we introduce the funding priorities of these six: the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). We then discuss overlapping themes and offer a perspective on promising research directions.

The NIH Science of Behavior Change Program: Looking Toward the Future.

The National Institutes of Health established the Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization, and maintenance of health behavior change. The SOBC Resource and Coordinating Center now leads and supports activities to maximize the creativity, productivity, scientific rigor, and dissemination of the experimental medicine approach and experimental design resources. Here, we highlight those resources, including the Checklist for Investigating Mechanisms in Behavior-change Research (CLIMBR) guidelines introduced in this special section. We describe the ways in which SOBC can be applied across a range of domains and contexts, and end by considering ways to extend SOBC's perspective and reach, so as to best promote behavior change linked with health, quality of life, and well-being.

The Health of Women (HOW) Study®: a web-based survey of breast cancer risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment.

PURPOSE: Although improvements in breast cancer detection and treatment have significantly increased survival, important questions related to breast cancer risk, prognosis, and survivorship remain. This brief report describes the Health of Women (HOW) Study® methodology and characterizes the participants who completed the My Health Overview and My Breast Cancer modules. METHODS: The HOW Study® was a collection of cross-sectional, web-based modules designed to survey a large number of participants with and without breast cancer. RESULTS: A total of 42,540 participants completed the My Health Overview module, of whom 13,285 (31.2%) reported a history of breast cancer. The majority of participants were white (94.3%), female (99.5%), married (74.1%), college educated (73.2%), post-menopausal (91.1%), parous (68.8%), and reported breastfeeding their children (56.0%). A total of 11,670 participants reported a history of breast cancer in the My Breast Cancer module. The majority of survivors reported on their primary breast cancer and were diagnosed over the age of 40 years (83.5%), had either Stage I or Stage II breast cancer (63.1%), and were treated with surgery (98.8%), radiation (64.8%), and/or chemotherapy (62.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The HOW Study® provides an innovative framework for collecting large amounts of epidemiological data in an efficient and minimally invasive way. Data are publicly available to researchers upon request. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The HOW Study® can be leveraged to answer important questions about survivorship, and researchers are encouraged to utilize this new data source.

Behavioral Research in Cancer Prevention and Control: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities.

It is estimated that behaviors such as poor diet, alcohol consumption, tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and excessive ultraviolet exposure account for nearly one-half of all cancer morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, the behavioral, social, and communication sciences have been important contributors to cancer prevention and control research, with methodological advances and implementation science helping to produce optimally effective interventions. To sustain these contributions, it is vital to adapt to the contemporary context. Efforts must consider ancillary effects of the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic, profound changes in the information environment and public understanding of and trust in science, renewed attention to structural racism and social determinants of health, and the rapidly increasing population of cancer survivors. Within this context, it is essential to accelerate reductions in tobacco use across all population subgroups; consider new models of energy balance (diet, physical activity, sedentary behavior); increase awareness of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer; and identify better communication practices in the context of cancer-related decisions such as screening and genetic testing. Successful integration of behavioral research and cancer prevention depends on working globally and seamlessly across disciplines, taking a multilevel approach where possible. Methodological and analytic approaches should be emphasized in research training programs and should use new and underused data sources and technologies. As the leadership core of the National Cancer Institute's Behavioral Research Program, we reflect on these challenges and opportunities and consider implications for the next phase of behavioral research in cancer prevention and control.

Survivorship for Individuals Living With Advanced and Metastatic Cancers: National Cancer Institute Meeting Report.

An important and often overlooked subpopulation of cancer survivors is individuals who are diagnosed with or progress to advanced or metastatic cancer. Living longer with advanced or metastatic cancer often comes with a cost of burdensome physical and psychosocial symptoms and complex care needs; however, research is limited on this population. Thus, in May 2021, the National Cancer Institute convened subject matter experts, researchers, clinicians, survivors, and advocates for a 2-day virtual meeting. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the evidence gaps identified by subject matter experts and attendees and key opportunities identified by the National Cancer Institute in 5 research areas: epidemiology and surveillance, symptom management, psychosocial research, health-care delivery, and health behaviors. Identified gaps and opportunities include the need to develop new strategies to estimate the number of individuals living with advanced and metastatic cancers; understand and address emerging symptom trajectories; improve prognostic understanding and communication between providers, patients, and caregivers; develop and test models of comprehensive survivorship care tailored to these populations; and assess patient and provider preferences for health behavior discussions throughout the survivorship trajectory. To best address the needs of individuals living with advanced and metastatic cancer and to deliver comprehensive evidence-based quality care, research is urgently needed to fill evidence gaps, and it is essential to incorporate the survivor perspective. Developing such an evidence base is critical to inform policy and practice.

Evidence Gaps in Cancer Survivorship Care: A Report From the 2019 National Cancer Institute Cancer Survivorship Workshop.

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. Although much progress has been made in describing cancer survivors' needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report "From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition," there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a 1-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following 6 areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years postdiagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors' diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.

Association of objectively measured sleep with frailty and 5-year mortality in community-dwelling older adults.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether actigraphy-measured sleep was independently associated with risk of frailty and mortality over a 5-year period among older adults. METHODS: We used data from Waves 2 (W2) and 3 (W3) (2010-2015) of the National Social Life, Health and Aging Project, a prospective cohort of community-dwelling older adults born between 1920 and 1947. One-third of W2 respondents were randomly selected to participate in a sleep study, of whom N = 727 consented and N = 615 were included in the analytic sample. Participants were instructed to wear a wrist actigraph for 72 h (2.93 ± 0.01 nights). Actigraphic sleep parameters were averaged across nights and included total sleep time, percent sleep, sleep fragmentation index, and wake after sleep onset. Subjective sleep was collected via questionnaire. Frailty was assessed using modified Fried Frailty Index. Vital status was ascertained at the time of the W3 interview. W3 frailty/mortality status was analyzed jointly with a four-level variable: robust, pre-frail, frail, and deceased. Associations were modeled per 10-unit increase. RESULTS: After controlling for baseline frailty (robust and pre-frail categories), age, sex, education, body mass index, and sleep time preference, a higher sleep fragmentation index was associated with frailty (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.02-2.84) and mortality (OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.09-4.09). Greater wake after sleep onset (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02-1.50) and lower percent sleep (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17-0.97) were associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Among community-dwelling older adults, actigraphic sleep is associated with frailty and all-cause mortality over a 5-year period. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate the physiological mechanisms underlying these associations.

Strategies to Prevent or Remediate Cancer and Treatment-Related Aging.

Up to 85% of adult cancer survivors and 99% of adult survivors of childhood cancer live with an accumulation of chronic conditions, frailty, and/or cognitive impairments resulting from cancer and its treatment. Thus, survivors often show an accelerated development of multiple geriatric syndromes and need therapeutic interventions. To advance progress in this area, the National Cancer Institute convened the second of 2 think tanks under the auspices of the Cancer and Accelerated Aging: Advancing Research for Healthy Survivors initiative. Experts assembled to share evidence of promising strategies to prevent, slow, or reverse the aging consequences of cancer and its treatment. The meeting identified research and resource needs, including geroscience-guided clinical trials; comprehensive assessments of functional, cognitive, and psychosocial vulnerabilities to assess and predict age-related outcomes; preclinical and clinical research to determine the optimal dosing for behavioral (eg, diet, exercise) and pharmacologic (eg, senolytic) therapies; health-care delivery research to evaluate the efficacy of integrated cancer care delivery models; optimization of intervention implementation, delivery, and uptake; and patient and provider education on cancer and treatment-related late and long-term adverse effects. Addressing these needs will expand knowledge of aging-related consequences of cancer and cancer treatment and inform strategies to promote healthy aging of cancer survivors.

Envisioning Arti's 'Cadillac study' to assess aging trajectories in cancer survivors.

The "Cadillac Study" was the term Arti Hurria, MD often used to articulate her vision of the optimal study to investigate the effects of cancer and its treatments on aging trajectories. In her opinion, this study needed to be designed for near-term clinical translation and have the ability to discern subpopulations of cancer survivors at greatest risk for poor outcomes. The purpose of this commentary is to describe, to the best of our knowledge, Arti's Cadillac Study based on personal conversations, group discussions, and her substantial portfolio of research. We describe the necessary study components of the Cadillac Study and discuss approaches to circumvent perceived barriers. In Arti's honor, our goal is to bring awareness and new perspectives to research on the aging consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to move the field forward.

Multimorbidity in health psychology and behavioral medicine.

This special issue highlights the unique potential that health psychology-behavioral medicine has to dramatically contribute to understanding, prevention, and control of the growing prevalence of multimorbidity (i.e., concurrent prevalence of more than 1 chronic health disease or condition in an individual). The 9 articles published here include 8 full, peer-reviewed articles and an invited commentary. Topics include relevance, measurement, mechanisms, and interventions for multimorbidity. Some articles survey relevant empirical literature, detail the representation of multimorbidity in behavioral intervention trials, or present new empirical data, whereas others present guidelines and system-level proposals to improve health care for patients with multiple health conditions. These articles offer proposals, challenges, and future directions for which health psychology-behavioral medicine is admirably suited to contribute to understanding multimorbidity and improving public health. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Multimorbidity: Implications and directions for health psychology and behavioral medicine.

The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity in the United States and the rest of the world poses problems for patients and for health care providers, care systems, and policy. After clarifying the difference between comorbidity and multimorbidity, this article describes the challenges that the prevalence of multimorbidity presents for well-being, prevention, and medical treatment. We submit that health psychology and behavioral medicine have an important role to play in meeting these challenges because of the holistic vision of health afforded by the foundational biopsychosocial model. Furthermore, opportunities abound for health psychology/behavioral medicine to study how biological, social and psychological factors influence multimorbidity. This article describes three major areas in which health psychologists can contribute to understanding and treatment of multimorbidity: (a) etiology; (b) prevention and self-management; and (c) clinical care. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

An Environmental Scan of Biopsychosocial and Clinical Variables in Cohort Studies of Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: An inventory of cancer survivorship cohorts is necessary to identify important gaps in what is being studied among cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of cancer survivor cohorts to determine the scope and scale of information collected on demographic, biopsychosocial, and selected clinical variables from cancer survivors. Cohorts were eligible for inclusion in the environmental scan if the study was conducted in the United States, reported in English, and consisted of data collected from cancer survivors postdiagnosis and followed for at least 1 year. RESULTS: Out of the 131 cohorts identified, 62 were eligible. There were 23 cancer sites represented, and more than half of the studies included breast cancer survivors (n = 34). The next most commonly included cancers were leukemia (n = 22) and lymphoma (n = 23). The majority (n = 59) collected information on clinical characteristics and basic diagnostic information, patient demographic characteristics (n = 57), patient-reported symptoms (n = 44), lifestyle (n = 45), and psychologic characteristics (n = 42). Half collected biospecimens (n = 35) and biomarkers (n = 35); fewer collected CAM use (n = 19) and social characteristics (n = 27). CONCLUSIONS: Extensive data are available in cancer cohorts to study important questions relevant to cancer survivors. Cohorts should consider collecting information on social and environmental factors, as well as biospecimen collection and biomarker analyses, and should include survivors from cancer sites less likely to be studied. IMPACT: This information can assist researchers in understanding the types of information currently being gathered from cancer survivors for further analysis and identify areas where more research is needed.

Measuring Aging and Identifying Aging Phenotypes in Cancer Survivors.

Observational data have shown that some cancer survivors develop chronic conditions like frailty, sarcopenia, cardiac dysfunction, and mild cognitive impairment earlier and/or at a greater burden than similarly aged individuals never diagnosed with cancer or exposed to systemic or targeted cancer therapies. In aggregate, cancer- and treatment-related physical, cognitive, and psychosocial late- and long-term morbidities experienced by cancer survivors are hypothesized to represent accelerated or accentuated aging trajectories. However, conceptual, measurement, and methodological challenges have constrained efforts to identify, predict, and mitigate aging-related consequences of cancer and cancer treatment. In July 2018, the National Cancer Institute convened basic, clinical, and translational science experts for a think tank titled "Measuring Aging and Identifying Aging Phenotypes in Cancer Survivors." Through the resulting deliberations, several research and resource needs were identified, including longitudinal studies to examine aging trajectories that include detailed data from before, during, and after cancer treatment; mechanistic studies to elucidate the pathways that lead to the emergence of aging phenotypes in cancer survivors; long-term clinical surveillance to monitor survivors for late-emerging effects; and tools to integrate multiple data sources to inform understanding of how cancer and its therapies contribute to the aging process. Addressing these needs will help expand the evidence base and inform strategies to optimize healthy aging of cancer survivors.

The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Although dual independent review of search results by two reviewers is generally recommended for systematic reviews, there are not consistent recommendations regarding the timing of the use of the second reviewer. This study compared the use of a complete dual review approach, with two reviewers in both the title/abstract screening stage and the full-text screening stage, as compared with a limited dual review approach, with two reviewers only in the full-text stage. METHODS: This study was performed within the context of a large systematic review. Two reviewers performed a complete dual review of 15 000 search results and a limited dual review of 15 000 search results. The number of relevant studies mistakenly excluded by highly experienced reviewers in the complete dual review was compared with the number mistakenly excluded during the full-text stage of the limited dual review. RESULTS: In the complete dual review approach, an additional 6.6% to 9.1% of eligible studies were identified during the title/abstract stage by using two reviewers, and an additional 6.6% to 11.9% of eligible studies were identified during the full-text stage by using two reviewers. In the limited dual review approach, an additional 4.4% to 5.3% of eligible studies were identified with the use of two reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Using a second reviewer throughout the entire study screening process can increase the number of relevant studies identified for use in a systematic review. Systematic review performers should consider using a complete dual review process to ensure all relevant studies are included in their review.

Multimorbidity in randomized controlled trials of behavioral interventions: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: As the population with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) increases, it is essential that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consider MCC. Behavioral interventions have the potential to positively impact MCC patient outcomes; however, a comprehensive review of consideration of MCC in these trials has not been conducted. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the frequency with which participants with MCC are represented in behavioral intervention RCTs targeting chronic illness published 2000-2014. METHOD: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2000 to 2014 to identify RCTs testing behavioral interventions among adults with chronic illness. A random sampling selection process was performed to identify 600 eligible studies representative of the literature. Two reviewers independently extracted information on consideration of MCC in eligibility criteria and evaluated the reporting and consideration of MCC in trial analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: In 600 behavioral intervention RCTs, targeting MCC was rare (4.3%). Exclusion of MCC was common (68.3%) and was done through general, specific, or vague exclusion criteria. 218 (36.3%) trials reported presence of MCCs through general or condition-specific measures. Comorbidities were only considered in 4.8% of all trial analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive systematic review of 600 studies published from 2000-2014, RCTs testing behavioral interventions rarely consider individuals with MCC, limiting generalizability. Given the public health relevance and limited evidence base, this work highlights the urgent need to improve the consideration of MCC in clinical trial research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Social support, loneliness, eating, and activity among parent-adolescent dyads.

We examined associations of social support and loneliness with eating and activity among parent-adolescent dyads (N = 2968) using actor-partner interdependence modeling. Loneliness had several actor associations with health behaviors (adolescents: less physical activity [PA], p < .001, more sedentariness, p < .001; parents: less fruit/vegetable consumption [FVC], p = .029, more hedonic food consumption [HFC], p = .002, and sedentariness, p < .001), but only one dyadic association (adolescent loneliness with less parent FVC, p = .039). Visible support was associated with less HFC, p < .001, and sedentariness, p < .001, but less FVC, p = .008, among adolescents. Invisible support was associated with less HFC, p = .003, but also less PA, p = .028, among adolescents. Both support types were associated with less HFC among parents, p < .001, but invisible support was also associated with less FVC, p = .029, and PA, p = .012, and more sedentariness, p = .013, among parents. When examining health behavior among parents and adolescents, it may be important to consider social support (but perhaps not loneliness) at a dyadic level.

Understanding stress reports in daily life: a coordinated analysis of factors associated with the frequency of reporting stress.

Although stress is a common experience in everyday life, a clear understanding of how often an individual experiences and reports stress is lacking. Notably, there is little information regarding factors that may influence how frequently stress is reported, including which stress dimension is measured (i.e., stressors-did an event happen, subjective stress-how stressed do you feel, conditional stress-how stressful a stressor was) and the temporal features of that assessment (i.e., time of day, day of study, weekday vs. weekend day). The purpose of the present study was to conduct a coordinated analysis of five independent ecological momentary assessment studies utilizing varied stress reporting dimensions and temporal features. Results indicated that, within days, stress was reported at different frequencies depending on the stress dimension. Stressors were reported on 15-32% of momentary reports made within a day; across days, the frequency ranged from 42 to 76% of days. Depending on the cutoff, subjective stress was reported more frequently ranging about 8-56% of all moments within days, and 40-90% of days. Likewise, conditional stress ranged from just 3% of moments to 22%, and 11-69% of days. For the temporal features, stress was reported more frequently on weekdays (compared to weekend days) and on days earlier in the study (relative to days later in the study); time of day was inconsistently related to stress reports. In sum, stress report frequency depends in part on how stress is assessed. As such, researchers may wish to measure stress in multiple ways and, in the case of subjective and conditional stress with multiple operational definitions, to thoroughly characterize the frequency of stress reporting.