Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: Breast cancer survivorship may involve persistent changes across multiple health domains, yet these domains are often studied in isolation. This study evaluated sleep, psychosocial health, body composition, and inflammatory biomarkers among breast cancer survivors (BCS) compared with women without a history of cancer (WHC). Methods: This cross-sectional study included 120 women (60 BCS and 60 WHC). Sleep and psychosocial health were assessed with validated questionnaires. Body composition was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and hs-CRP, IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α were quantified using high-sensitivity immunoassays. Multivariable regression models were adjusted for relevant covariates. Exploratory analyses examined associations among these domains in BCS. Results: BCS had poorer sleep quality and lower sleep efficiency than WHC, along with differences in waist circumference and selected inflammatory markers. After adjustment, survivorship status remained independently associated with poorer sleep quality, lower sleep efficiency, impaired role functioning, and lower total body fat percentage. BCS had threefold higher odds of detectable IL-1β than WHC. Exploratory analyses showed limited and heterogeneous associations among body composition, inflammation, and psychosocial factors in BCS. Conclusions: BCS demonstrated a domain-specific survivorship profile, exhibiting the most consistent differences in sleep and functional well-being rather than in generalized alterations across psychosocial, body composition, or inflammatory domains. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Survivorship care may benefit from targeted assessments of sleep and functional well-being alongside physical and biological indicators. Longitudinal research is needed to clarify how these domains interact over time and to determine whether targeted interventions improve survivorship outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration Clinical trial number: not applicable
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nindenshuti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: