Advertisement
Research Articles

Ambulatory Function and Mortality among Cancer Survivors in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Elizabeth A. Salerno, Pedro F. Saint-Maurice, Erik A. Willis, Steven C. Moore, Loretta DiPietro and Charles E. Matthews
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1473 Published April 2021

Abstract

Background: There is limited evidence describing associations between cancer and function in diverse cancer types and its relationship with mortality. We investigated the relationship between cancer and poor ambulatory function and associations between ambulatory function and subsequent mortality.

Methods: Participants included 233,135 adults (n = 30,403 cancer and n = 202,732 cancer free) in the NIH-American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study (1994–1996) who self-reported ambulatory function (e.g., walking pace and mobility disability: being unable to walk or walking at the slowest pace) in 2004–2006. Participants were followed for mortality from the assessment of ambulatory function through 2011. Multinomial logistic regression quantified the association between cancer and ambulatory function. We then explored the independent effects of walking pace and mobility disability in cancer survivors, and the joint effects of both a cancer diagnosis and poor ambulatory function on mortality using Cox proportional hazards models. Models explored type-specific associations across 15 cancer types.

Results: Survivors had 42% greater odds of walking at the slowest pace [OR, 1.42 (confidence interval (CI), 1.30–1.54)] and 24% greater odds of mobility disability [OR, 1.24 (CI, 1.17–1.31)], compared with cancer-free participants, adjusting for baseline demographics, health indicators, and cancer type. Survivors reporting the slowest pace were at increased hazards than those who walked the fastest: all-cause mortality [HR, 2.22 (CI, 2.06–2.39)] and cancer mortality [HR, 2.12 (CI, 1.83–2.45)]. Similar trends emerged for mobility disability (HRs > 1.64). All-cause mortality associations were significant for more than nine cancer types.

Conclusions: A diagnosis of cancer is associated with poorer ambulatory function, which is subsequently associated with increased mortality.

Impact: Widespread efforts should target ambulatory function during cancer survivorship for survival benefits.

Introduction

Most individuals diagnosed with cancer are over the age of 50 years (1) and face a unique burden of both aging- and cancer-related symptoms, such as impaired physical function, worsened quality of life, and premature mortality (2). Ambulatory function, as indicated by walking pace and major mobility disability, is critical for independence into old age (3) and often modifiable through behavior change, such as increased physical activity (4). Functional impairments after diagnosis and treatment for cancer have been documented (5–9), but much of this work has focused on a limited number of cancer types (10–13), less than 2 years of follow-up since diagnosis (5, 6, 11–13), and used objective measures of function (9). More recently, Bluethmann and colleagues (9) noted that survivors of cancer are more likely to walk at slower paces and show signs of disability. However, critical gaps remain surrounding the cancer–function association, specifically the reliance on objective measures of function. Such assessments are robust and important for their contribution to our understanding of the cancer–function relationship; however, they are often costly and limiting to many. There is a need to develop broad surveillance tools during cancer survivorship to identify those most in need of functional intervention. Furthermore, it is no longer only the “big four” cancer survivors who are living longer (14), yet there remains a paucity of evidence for differences in ambulatory function between the general population and survivors of rarer cancer types, as well as how long these differences may persist beyond the acute phase of diagnosis and treatment.

Poor ambulatory function has been consistently associated with worsened survival in healthy older adults (15–17). A pooled analysis from nine large cohorts identified increased mortality with slower walking pace in adults more than 65 years of age (16). Ambulatory function has often been referred to as the “sixth vital sign” given its validated and prognostic value for its functional perspective on health status (18). Such function–survival associations appear to extend to cancer survivors, as some work has identified increased risk of mortality with slower walking speeds (19–23). However, little has been done to investigate mortality risk by ambulatory function for a variety of cancer types, an important consideration in directing more precise interventions to promote functional health and longevity during survivorship (24).

To address these evidence gaps across 15 different cancer types, we examined: (i) whether a diagnosis of cancer is associated with lower ambulatory function and (ii) the independent effects of these functional domains on mortality in cancer survivors specifically, as well as the joint effects of both a cancer diagnosis and poor ambulatory function on mortality. We hypothesized that cancer survivors would be at increased risk of lower ambulatory function than cancer-free controls and that poor ambulatory function would be associated with increased risk of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality in cancer survivors.

Materials and Methods

Participants and study design

The NIH-American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Diet and Health Study is a large prospective study of more than 500,000 AARP members between the ages of 50 and 71 years who responded to a baseline questionnaire assessing diet, medical history, and demographics in 1995–1996 (25). In 2004–2006, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to all surviving members of the cohort that assessed health status, lifestyle behaviors, body size, and many other factors, including ambulatory function (response rate, 44%). Figure 1 describes the basic study design, including key data collection points and the mortality follow-up period. The NIH-AARP Diet and Healthy Study was approved by the NCI (Bethesda, MD) Special Studies Institutional Review Board.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Timeline. Timeline of data collection in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.

Identification of cancer survivors

Cancer survivors were identified through linkage of the cohort to state cancer registries through December 31, 2006. Survivors were those with a registry-confirmed diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer) prior to completion of the follow-up questionnaire. Registries provided information on cancer diagnosis date, histology, stage, grade, and first course of treatment reported within 1 year of diagnosis. Assessment of cancer cases through the state registries has been estimated to be more than 90% (26).

Development of the analytic sample

Of the 566,398 respondents to the baseline questionnaire, 294,870 returned the follow-up questionnaire. To maintain temporality, we excluded cancer survivors diagnosed after the follow-up questionnaire (n = 35,721). To reduce the potential for confounding due to poor health status (27) or reporting inaccuracies, we further excluded survivors with metastatic disease (n = 1,944), recurrent disease (n = 138), nonregistry-confirmed diagnosis (n = 59), and those with more than an year between diagnosis and treatment (n = 1,476). All eligible participants who had missing ambulatory function information on the follow-up questionnaire were also excluded (n = 22,397), leaving a final analytic sample of 30,403 cancer survivors and 202,732 individuals free of cancer (233,135 total participants). Cancer type–specific analyses included only those cancer types with at least 100 cases.

Covariate assessment

The baseline questionnaire assessed age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), highest level of educational attainment, and health status. Leisure-time physical activity and morbid conditions were self-reported on the follow-up questionnaire. A frailty index was created using the deficit accumulation approach (28), such that 26 morbid conditions reported at follow-up (see Supplementary Table S1) were summed, and then divided by the total number of conditions available. Individuals were then categorized as robust (<0.15), prefrail (0.15–0.24), mildly frail (0.25–0.34), or moderately-to-severely frail (≥0.35; ref. 29). Cancer type and treatment were assessed through state cancer registries and represent the first primary cancer type and first course of treatment (surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy).

Ambulatory function assessment

At follow-up, participants self-reported their normal walking pace [“easy” (<2 mph); “normal, average” (2–2.9 mph); “brisk” (3–3.9 mph); “very brisk, striding” (≥4 mph); and “unable to walk”]. Ambulatory function was evaluated in terms of walking pace and mobility disability. “Brisk” and “very brisk, striding” categories were collapsed together to better represent previous studies of gait speed in older adults (16). To prevent overestimation on analyses specific to walking pace, those who responded that they were “unable to walk” were removed (n = 6,501; “easy”, “normal”, and “≥brisk”). Mobility disability was classified as a report of being “unable to walk” or “easy” as has been done previously in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study (30). For clarity, an “easy” pace will be referred to as “slow” throughout the rest of the article, given it was the slowest pace reported by participants.

Mortality assessment

All-cause and cancer-specific mortality were assessed through linkage to the Social Security Administration Death Master File, as well as the National Death Index through December 31, 2011. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes were used to classify deaths due to all causes and with a cancer as the underlying cause. Ascertainment of deaths in this cohort is estimated to be more than 93% (31).

Statistical analysis

Because a large proportion of the original baseline cohort was not examined because of nonresponse on the follow-up questionnaire or participants moving out of areas covered by study-specific cancer registries, we used inverse probability weighting to account for the potential impact of differences between participants in the cohort at baseline and those who completed the follow-up questionnaire (32). Briefly, among all participants alive at the time of the follow-up questionnaire, we calculated a propensity score of completing the follow-up questionnaire using multiple logistic regression that included baseline age, sex, race, education, marital status, self-reported health status, smoking history, BMI, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, end-stage renal disease, gallbladder stones or disease, emphysema, osteoporosis, bone fracture after age 45 years, and polyps of colon or rectum. We then categorized participants into deciles on the basis of this propensity score and assigned individual weights that were inversely proportional to the number of individuals in their category that completed the questionnaire (33). These weights were then applied to all models.

To describe the association between a diagnosis of cancer and ambulatory function, multinomial logistic regression models estimated the odds of different walking paces for those with and without a cancer diagnosis. The odds of having mobility disability at follow-up by cancer status were assessed using logistic regression models. We further examined the associations between diagnosis for specific cancer types and ambulatory function. Models included those diagnosed with the cancer of interest and all controls in the cohort. Sensitivity analyses quantified how time since diagnosis may have contributed to the overall association using indicator variables (e.g., <1, 1–4.9, and ≥5 years). Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, BMI, self-reported health status, time under observation, frailty index, and cancer type (except in cancer-specific analyses).

To quantify independent effects of ambulatory function on mortality in cancer survivors, Cox proportional hazards regression models estimated adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Time from the follow-up questionnaire was the underlying time metric. We further examined these associations in specific cancer types; thus, we included only those diagnosed with the cancer of interest. Models were adjusted for all previous covariates plus leisure-time physical activity, time since diagnosis, and cancer treatment. Sensitivity analyses explored these associations by cancer treatment receipt (yes/no). To determine the joint effects of a cancer diagnosis and poor ambulatory function on mortality risk, we created indicator variables to directly compare the coexistence of both conditions against controls who walked the fastest and did not have mobility disability (reference groups). All statistical tests were conducted in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute), and significance level was set to 0.05.

Results

Participant characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Briefly, individuals were just over 60 years of age (Mage = 61.8 ± 5.36) at baseline, White (92.4%), male (56.7%), and generally healthy (56.4% reporting ≥“very good” health). Cancer survivors were mostly early stage (67.4% stage I disease) and previously had surgery for their disease (59.3%). Cancer types with ≥100 cases included breast, colon, endocrine, endometrial, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, oral, ovarian, prostate, rectum, respiratory system, stomach, soft tissue, urinary, and vulva (Table 2; International Classification of Disease for Oncology, Third Edition; ref. 34). The average time between cancer diagnosis and assessment of ambulatory function in survivors was 4.6 ± 2.8 years. Follow-up time between ambulatory function assessment and death or censoring averaged 6.3 ± 1.7 years for survivors and 6.7 ± 1.1 years for controls.

View this table:
Table 1.

Participant demographics and cancer-specific characteristics at baseline.

View this table:
Table 2.

Multinomial and logistic regression odds of poor ambulatory function of cancer survivors compared with cancer-free controls.

Associations between cancer and ambulatory function

A diagnosis of cancer was associated with increased odds of poor ambulatory function (Table 2, sorted by walking pace strength of association). Relative to the fastest walking pace, individuals with a diagnosis of cancer had 42% higher odds of walking at the slowest pace compared with adults without a cancer diagnosis [OR, 1.42 (1.30–1.54)]. Similarly, survivors had significantly higher odds of mobility disability at follow-up [OR, 1.24 (1.17–1.31)], after adjustment for demographics, BMI, health status, and cancer type. Sensitivity analyses indicated that regardless of time since diagnosis, survivors had increased odds of poor ambulatory function compared with controls (P < 0.001; see Supplementary Table S2).

The association between cancer diagnosis and lower ambulatory function persisted in nine different cancer types compared with controls (Table 2). A diagnosis of breast, colon, oral, prostate, rectal, respiratory, soft tissue, stomach, and urinary cancer was significantly associated with higher odds of slow walking (ORs > 1.05). A similar pattern emerged for mobility disability, such that a diagnosis of breast, colon, endometrial, oral, prostate, rectal, respiratory, soft tissue, and urinary cancer was associated with greater risk of being disabled than controls. Across both ambulatory function indicators, the strongest associations were evident for respiratory and oral cancers (ORs > 1.60). Survivors with melanoma had significantly lower odds of poor ambulatory function than controls (ORs < 0.88).

Associations between ambulatory function and mortality in cancer survivors

We found significant independent effects of ambulatory function on mortality. Slower walking paces were significantly associated with higher risk of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality, adjusting for demographics and cancer characteristics (Fig. 2). Compared with the fastest walking survivors, those reporting slower walking had over a doubling of risk for all-cause mortality [HR, 2.22 (2.06–2.39)]. Mobility disability after cancer was also significantly associated with increased hazards of all-cause mortality [HR, 1.80 (1.73–1.88)]. This pattern of association persisted for cancer-specific mortality. Sensitivity analyses indicated no significant differences by treatment receipt (Pinteraction > 0.106; see Supplementary Table S3).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Walking pace, mobility disability, and hazards of all-cause and cancer mortality in cancer survivors. Covariates: age, sex, race, highest level of education, years of follow-up, BMI, self-reported health status, cancer type, leisure time physical activity, cancer treatment, frailty index, and time between cancer diagnosis and follow-up questionnaire.

Of the 15 cancer types examined, poor ambulatory function was associated with increased mortality risk across most cancers (Fig. 3; Supplementary Tables S4 and S5). In nine cancer types, survivors who reported the slowest walking pace were at significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality, including breast, colon, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, oral, prostate, rectal, respiratory, and urinary cancers (HRs > 1.91). More robust associations were evidenced for mobility disability. Thirteen different cancers had significant associations between mobility disability and all-cause mortality, including breast, colon, endometrial, endocrine, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, oral, ovarian, prostate, rectal, respiratory, stomach, and urinary cancers (HRs > 1.34).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Hazards of all-cause mortality in cancer survivors: reporting a slow pace compared with those reporting ≥brisk walking pace (A) and reporting mobility disability compared with those without mobility disability (B). Covariates: age, sex, race, highest level of education, years of follow-up, BMI, self-reported health status, leisure time physical activity, cancer treatment, frailty index, and time between cancer diagnosis and follow-up questionnaire.

Joint associations of cancer and ambulatory function on mortality

Finally, we examined the joint effects of poor ambulatory function and cancer on mortality in both cancer survivors and controls and found a statistically significant interaction between ambulatory function and a previous cancer diagnosis (P < 0.001; Fig. 4). Lower ambulatory function was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality in both survivors and controls; however, the adverse risk association was much stronger in survivors. For example, compared with the fastest walking controls, cancer survivors who walked the slowest had a much higher HR than controls who walked the slowest (10.37 vs. 3.91). Similar patterns emerged for mobility disability.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Hazards of all-cause mortality by coexistence of poor ambulatory function and cancer: walking pace (A) and mobility disability (B).

Discussion

Our findings suggest that diagnosis and treatment for cancer are associated with poor ambulatory function up to 5 years later. These results were consistent across nine different types of cancer, suggesting that more cancer types may predispose individuals to poor ambulatory function than studied previously. Lower ambulatory function placed cancer survivors at increased risk of death, highlighting the importance of these functional domains during survivorship. Importantly, our results also suggest that risks associated with lower ambulatory function may be two to three times stronger for early mortality in survivors compared with the general population.

Our finding that a diagnosis of cancer was associated with poor ambulatory function is consistent with the literature highlighting pervasive and detrimental effects of cancer on functional health (5–8, 21, 35, 36). To date, most of this work has been confined to common cancer types, such as breast cancer (8, 37). The novel contributions of this study allowed us to examine longitudinal associations between cancer and ambulatory function across 15 different cancer types. A wide variety of cancer types were associated with lower ambulatory function, including those of the gastrointestinal tract, hormonally related cancers, and even cancers with watch-and-wait treatment recommendations (prostate). Interestingly, melanoma was associated with lower odds of poor ambulatory function, which may be due to the known relationship between leisure-time physical activity and increased melanoma risk (38). The biological and/or psychosocial mechanisms of the differential odds of ambulatory function in specific cancer types should be explored further. This sample of cancer survivors is on average several years beyond treatment cessation, and a better understanding of both pre- and postdiagnosis behavioral, biological, and cancer-specific factors will be important to fully envision these complex relationships. Specifically, future research would do well to explore changes in ambulatory function across the cancer continuum, not just posttreatment, to better identify where functional changes occur for each cancer type and optimal time(s) for intervention.

Walking pace and mobility disability were also independently associated with increased mortality risk in cancer survivors, just as ambulatory function has emerged as a robust predictor of survival in healthy older adults (16, 39). These findings corroborate a recent analysis of self-reported mobility disability and mortality among survivors. (21) Brown and colleagues identified 215% and 249% increased risk of all-cause and cancer mortality with mobility disability (as assessed via one's perceived difficulty in walking for a quarter of a mile), respectively, among 1,458 cancer survivors in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Other studies have also noted increased mortality hazards in survivors with slower walking paces, albeit with binary definitions and limited cancer types (20, 22). Importantly, we explored the function–mortality relationship among multiple walking pace categories and 15 different cancer types, highlighting significant associations among nine cancers for walking pace and 13 cancers for mobility disability. Previously unexplored, these findings provide a foundation for future research into potential cancer-specific mechanisms that may be increasing mortality risk. Despite chemotherapy's notorious reputation for deleterious late effects, sensitivity analyses suggested that these results cannot be explained by treatment regimen alone; future research would do well to investigate other cancer type- or aging-specific factors that may explain the function–survival relationship. That said, poor function was associated with mortality in most cancer types studied herein, suggesting that universal efforts toward improving ambulatory function during survivorship are worthwhile. Such efforts may include physical activity, which has been consistently associated with improved gait speed during survivorship (40).

Indeed, our joint effects of cancer and function on all-cause mortality point to substantially increased risk of death in survivors with poor functioning compared with healthy controls. If replicated, these findings suggest that ambulatory function may be more important for survival in cancer survivors for reasons we do not yet fully understand. Potentially due to an accelerated aging trajectory (2), coupled with other cancer-specific characteristics unavailable in this sample (e.g., specific chemotherapies, multiple treatments, and medications), clarifying the underlying biological mechanisms of these findings is warranted.

Of further interest is the self-reported nature of ambulatory function in this analysis and its implications for widespread surveillance of cancer survivors. Historically, objective measures of walking pace (20, 22) and clinical indicators, such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (41) and Karnofsky performance status (42), have served as prognostic factors of survival in cancer survivors. Despite their importance, implementing these measures in practice may be unrealistic for many older cancer survivors due to burden, cost, and time (21), and they certainly are not applicable to broader population assessment. While ECOG and Karnofsky performance statuses or other objective functional batteries were unavailable in this sample, our findings suggest that simple patient-reported outcomes, such as one question about walking pace, may be efficient alternatives for screening survivors on a large scale to identify those who may need follow-up with more rigorous assessments of ambulatory function. Future research should include multiple functional measures to determine the independent prognostic ability of self-reported walking pace and/or mobility disability for determining survival.

Our results should be interpreted in the context of the study's strengths and limitations. The primary strength of this analysis is its prospective nature, allowing us to test temporal associations between cancer and future ambulatory function, and ambulatory function and future mortality. Our large sample size also allowed us to explore these relationships in multiple cancer types that had previously been unexplored. We acknowledge that our analytic sample was comprised of less than the original NIH-AARP cohort, thus results may be more relevant to individuals who filled out the follow-up questionnaire. However, we conducted inverse probability weighting to statistically account for these differences. Furthermore, most survivors were early stage and multiple years postdiagnosis. Limited treatment information available from cancer registries also made it difficult to understand the specific regimens that may be detrimental to ambulatory function. It is nonetheless encouraging that such associations emerged in a relatively healthy sample, suggesting that the cancer–function relationship may be more pronounced, and potentially even more important, in more diverse samples. It is also worth noting that other unmeasured factors (e.g., mild cognitive impairment or dementia) may confound the relationships reported herein. However, we included a constellation of potential confounders to estimate the association to the best of our ability with the data available. Finally, despite research highlighting the robust association between self-reported and objective measures of ambulatory function (43), we are unable to say with certainty that self-reported walking pace in this study paralleled true gait speed; however, these subjective measures allowed for broad, cost-effective identification of at-risk survivors.

To our knowledge, this is the first prospective analysis to have considered both the role of a cancer diagnosis on ambulatory function and the implications of poor function on subsequent survival in 15 different cancer types. Our findings confirm an increased risk of poor ambulatory function after cancer, as well as survivors' increased risk of mortality with lower functional health. Notably, these associations persisted in at least nine different cancer types, highlighting the need for comprehensive surveillance and targeting of ambulatory function during survivorship, potentially through cancer rehabilitation and/or behavioral change (e.g., physical activity). Given that cancer survivors with poor ambulatory function had two to three times greater mortality risk than their cancer-free peers, public health efforts should focus on identifying and targeting survivors who are at-risk for poor functional health to ultimately improve survival.

Authors' Disclosures

No disclosures were reported.

Disclaimer

The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the FCDC or FDOH. The Pennsylvania Department of Health specifically disclaims responsibility for any analyses, interpretations or conclusions.

Authors' Contributions

E.A. Salerno: Conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. P.F. Saint-Maurice: Formal analysis, writing–review and editing. E.A. Willis: Writing–review and editing. S.C. Moore: Writing–review and editing. L. DiPietro: Writing–review and editing. C.E. Matthews: Conceptualization, supervision, methodology, writing–review and editing.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported (in part) by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, NCI. Cancer incidence data from the Atlanta metropolitan area were collected by the Georgia Center for Cancer Statistics, Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University (Atlanta, GA). Cancer incidence data from California were collected by the California Cancer Registry, California Department of Public Health's Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch (Sacramento, CA). Cancer incidence data from the Detroit metropolitan area were collected by the Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program, Community Health Administration (Lansing, MI). The Florida cancer incidence data used in this report were collected by the Florida Cancer Data System (Miami, FL) under contract with the Florida Department of Health (Tallahassee, FL). Cancer incidence data from Louisiana were collected by the Louisiana Tumor Registry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Public Health (New Orleans, LA). Cancer incidence data from New Jersey were collected by the New Jersey State Cancer Registry, The Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey (New Brunswick, NJ). Cancer incidence data from North Carolina were collected by the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry (Raleigh, NC). Cancer incidence data from Pennsylvania were supplied by the Division of Health Statistics and Research, Pennsylvania Department of Health (Harrisburg, PA). Cancer incidence data from Arizona were collected by the Arizona Cancer Registry, Division of Public Health Services, Arizona Department of Health Services (Phoenix, AZ). Cancer incidence data from Texas were collected by the Texas Cancer Registry, Cancer Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services (Austin, TX). Cancer incidence data from Nevada were collected by the Nevada Central Cancer Registry, Division of Public and Behavioral Health, State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (Carson City, NV). We are indebted to the participants in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study for their outstanding cooperation. We also thank Sigurd Hermansen and Kerry Grace Morrissey from Westat for study outcomes ascertainment and management and Leslie Carroll at Information Management Services for data support and analysis.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021;30:690–8

  • Received October 12, 2020.
  • Revision received December 11, 2020.
  • Accepted January 15, 2021.
  • Published first March 4, 2021.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Henderson TO,
    2. Ness KK,
    3. Cohen HJ
    . Accelerated aging among cancer survivors: from pediatrics to geriatrics. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ B 2014;34:e423–30.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lowry KA,
    2. Vallejo AN,
    3. Studenski SA
    . Successful aging as a continuum of functional independence: lessons from physical disability models of aging. Aging Dis 2012;3:5–15.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Nelson ME,
    2. Rejeski WJ,
    3. Blair SN,
    4. Duncan PW,
    5. Judge JO,
    6. King AC,
    7. et al.
    Physical activity and public health in older adults: recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation 2007;116:1094–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Avis NE,
    2. Deimling GT
    . Cancer survivorship and aging. Cancer 2008;113:3519–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bellizzi KM,
    2. Mustian KM,
    3. Palesh OG,
    4. Diefenbach M
    . Cancer survivorship and aging. Cancer 2008;113:3530–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Demark-Wahnefried W,
    2. Pinto BM,
    3. Gritz ER
    . Promoting health and physical function among cancer survivors: potential for prevention and questions that remain. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5125–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Petrick JL,
    2. Reeve BB,
    3. Kucharska-Newton AM,
    4. Foraker RE,
    5. Platz EA,
    6. Stearns SC,
    7. et al.
    Functional status declines among cancer survivors: Trajectory and contributing factors. J Geriatr Oncol 2014;5:359–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Bluethmann SM,
    2. Flores E,
    3. Campbell G,
    4. Klepin HD
    . Mobility device use and mobility disability in U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with and without cancer history. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020;68:2872–80.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Given CW,
    2. Given B,
    3. Azzouz F,
    4. Stommel M,
    5. Kozachik S
    . Comparison of changes in physical functioning of elderly patients with new diagnoses of cancer. Med Care 2000;38:482–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Ganz PA,
    2. Guadagnoli E,
    3. Landrum MB,
    4. Lash TL,
    5. Rakowski W,
    6. Silliman RA
    . Breast cancer in older women: quality of life and psychosocial adjustment in the 15 months after diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4027–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Arndt V,
    2. Merx H,
    3. Stürmer T,
    4. Stegmaier C,
    5. Ziegler H,
    6. Brenner H
    . Age-specific detriments to quality of life among breast cancer patients one year after diagnosis. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:673–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kroenke CH,
    2. Rosner B,
    3. Chen WY,
    4. Kawachi I,
    5. Colditz GA,
    6. Holmes MD
    . Functional impact of breast cancer by age at diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1849–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Miller KD,
    2. Nogueira L,
    3. Mariotto AB,
    4. Rowland JH,
    5. Yabroff KR,
    6. Alfano CM,
    7. et al.
    Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:363–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hirvensalo M,
    2. Rantanen T,
    3. Heikkinen E
    . Mobility difficulties and physical activity as predictors of mortality and loss of independence in the community-living older population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:493–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Studenski S,
    2. Perera S,
    3. Patel K,
    4. Faulkner K,
    5. Inzitari M,
    6. Brach J,
    7. et al.
    Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA 2011;305:50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Stamatakis E,
    2. Kelly P,
    3. Strain T,
    4. Murtagh EM,
    5. Ding D,
    6. Murphy MH
    . Self-rated walking pace and all-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 50 225 walkers from 11 population British cohorts. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:761–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Fritz S,
    2. Lusardi MM
    . White paper: walking speed: the sixth vital sign. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2009;32:2–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brown JC,
    2. Harhay MO,
    3. Harhay MN
    . Physical function as a prognostic biomarker among cancer survivors. Br J Cancer 2015;112:194–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pamoukdjian F,
    2. Lévy V,
    3. Sebbane G,
    4. Boubaya M,
    5. Landre T,
    6. Bloch-Queyrat C,
    7. et al.
    Slow gait speed is an independent predictor of early death in older cancer outpatients: results from a prospective cohort study. J Nutr Health Aging 2017;21:202–6.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Brown JC,
    2. Harhay MO,
    3. Harhay MN
    . Self-reported major mobility disability and mortality among cancer survivors. J Geriatr Oncol 2018;9:459–63.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Cesari M,
    2. Cerullo F,
    3. Zamboni V,
    4. Di Palma R,
    5. Scambia G,
    6. Balducci L,
    7. et al.
    Functional status and mortality in older women with gynecological cancer. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2013;68:1129–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Klepin HD,
    2. Geiger AM,
    3. Tooze JA,
    4. Newman AB,
    5. Colbert LH,
    6. Bauer DC,
    7. et al.
    Physical performance and subsequent disability and survival in older adults with malignancy: results from the health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58:76–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70:7–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Schatzkin A,
    2. Subar AF,
    3. Thompson FE,
    4. Harlan LC,
    5. Tangrea J,
    6. Hollenbeck AR,
    7. et al.
    Design and serendipity in establishing a large cohort with wide dietary intake distributions. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:1119–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Michaud D,
    2. Midthune D,
    3. Hermansen S,
    4. Leitzmman MF,
    5. Harlan LC,
    6. Kipnis V,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of cancer registry case ascertainment with SEER estimates and self-reporting in a subset of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. J Registry Manag 2005;32:70–5.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Matthews CE,
    2. Troiano RP,
    3. Salerno EA,
    4. Berrigan D,
    5. Patel SB,
    6. Shiroma EJ,
    7. et al.
    Exploration of confounding due to poor health in an accelerometer–mortality study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2020;52:2546–53.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Theou O,
    2. Walston J,
    3. Rockwood K
    . Operationalizing frailty using the frailty phenotype and deficit accumulation approaches. In: interdisciplinary topics in gerontology and geriatrics. Basel, Switzerland, Karger Publishers; 2015. p. 66–73.
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kim DH,
    2. Glynn RJ,
    3. Avorn J,
    4. Lipsitz LA,
    5. Rockwood K,
    6. Pawar A,
    7. et al.
    Validation of a claims-based frailty index against physical performance and adverse health outcomes in the health and retirement study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2019;74:1271–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    1. DiPietro L,
    2. Jin Y,
    3. Talegawkar S,
    4. Matthews CE
    . The joint associations of sedentary time and physical activity with mobility disability in older people: the NIH-AARP diet and health study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2018;73:532–8.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Rich-Edwards JW,
    2. Corsano KA,
    3. Stampfer MJ
    . Test of the national death index and Equifax nationwide death search. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:1016–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Seaman SR,
    2. White IR
    . Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res 2013;22:278–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Curtis LH,
    2. Hammill BG,
    3. Eisenstein EL,
    4. Kramer JM,
    5. Anstrom KJ
    . Using inverse probability-weighted estimators in comparative effectiveness analyses with observational databases. Med Care 2007;45:S103–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Fritz AG
    , editor. International Classification of Disease for Oncology: ICD-O. Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Keating NL,
    2. Nørredam M,
    3. Landrum MB,
    4. Huskamp HA,
    5. Meara E
    . Physical and mental health status of older long-term cancer survivors. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:2145–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Deimling GT,
    2. Sterns S,
    3. Bowman KF,
    4. Kahana B
    . Functioning and activity participation restrictions among older adult, long-term cancer survivors. Cancer Invest 2007;25:106–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Sweeney C,
    2. Schmitz KH,
    3. Lazovich D,
    4. Virnig BA,
    5. Wallace RB,
    6. Folsom AR
    . Functional limitations in elderly female cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:521–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Moore SC,
    2. Lee I-M,
    3. Weiderpass E,
    4. Campbell PT,
    5. Sampson JN,
    6. Kitahara CM,
    7. et al.
    Association of leisure-time physical activity with risk of 26 types of cancer in 1.44 million adults. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:816.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Hardy SE,
    2. Perera S,
    3. Roumani YF,
    4. Chandler JM,
    5. Studenski SA
    . Improvement in usual gait speed predicts better survival in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55:1727–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Kirkham AA,
    2. Bland KA,
    3. Sayyari S,
    4. Campbell KL,
    5. Davis MK
    . Clinically relevant physical benefits of exercise interventions in breast cancer survivors. Curr Oncol Rep 2016;18:12.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Zubrod CG,
    2. Schneiderman M,
    3. Frei E,
    4. Brindley C,
    5. Lennard Gold G,
    6. Shnider B,
    7. et al.
    Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: Comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis 1960;11:7–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Karnofsky DA
    . The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. Available from: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10005058071.
  43. 43.↵
    1. Brown JC,
    2. Harhay MO,
    3. Harhay MN
    . Patient-reported versus objectively-measured physical function and mortality risk among cancer survivors. J Geriatr Oncol 2016;7:108–15.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 30 (4)
April 2021
Volume 30, Issue 4

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Ambulatory Function and Mortality among Cancer Survivors in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study
Elizabeth A. Salerno, Pedro F. Saint-Maurice, Erik A. Willis, Steven C. Moore, Loretta DiPietro and Charles E. Matthews
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev April 1 2021 (30) (4) 690-698; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1473
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement