Next Article in Journal
School-Based Sleep Education Program for Children: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Instructors’ Perspectives on the Assessment of Clinical Knowledge of Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Descriptive Phenomenological Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 13
10.3390/healthcare11131852
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between Phase Angle and Subjective Perceptions of Health Variables in Cancer Patients

by
Borja Gutiérrez-Santamaría
1,
Aitor Martinez Aguirre-Betolaza
1,
Arturo García-Álvarez
2,
María Soledad Arietaleanizbeaskoa
2,
Nere Mendizabal-Gallastegui
2,
Gonzalo Grandes
2,
Aitor Coca
3,* and
Arkaitz Castañeda-Babarro
1
1
Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Education and Sport, University of Deusto, 48007 Bilbo, Bizkaia, Spain
2
Primary Care Research Unit of Bizkaia, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Plaza de Cruces 12, 48903 Barakaldo, Biscay, Spain
3
Department of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Euneiz University, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Alava, La Biosfera Ibilbidea, 6, 01013 Gasteiz, Araba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(13), 1852; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131852
Submission received: 13 May 2023 / Revised: 20 June 2023 / Accepted: 25 June 2023 / Published: 26 June 2023
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The phase angle, an increasingly studied healthcare tool, was studied to explore its relationship with psychological factors in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the phase angle (PhA), obtained by the bioimpedance analysis of body composition, and psychological factors measured by questionnaire in cancer patients. The study included 311 patients who underwent bioimpedance testing to determine their PhA value; their psychological profiles were assessed using SF-36, FACIT, QLQ-C30, and GHQ-12 questionnaires. Mixed linear regression models were used to analyze the relationship between PhA and the psychological tests. The results showed a statistical correlation between PhA and the GHQ-12, FACIT, and SF-36 questionnaires, with higher PhA values associated with better results on the questionnaires. In the QLQ-C30 questionnaire, a correlation was observed between PhA and the functioning scales (p < 0.001), except for emotional and cognitive functioning (p = 0.148 and p = 0.544, respectively), but not in most of the symptom scales. The PhA is a useful tool for assessing the subjective health perception of cancer patients, especially with regard to psychological factors. While there is a statistically significant correlation, further research is required before confidently applying it in clinical practice. The current predictive value of this predictor for certain psychological aspects is limited, underscoring the need for additional research.

1. Introduction

The phase angle (PhA) is used to evaluate nutritional status and is an indicator of cellular health [1]. Clinically, the PhA reflects cell membrane function and body cell mass, which means that the higher the PhA, the better the cell function [2]. The principle behind the PhA concept relies on alterations in both resistance and reactance when alternating current flows through analyzed tissues. As the current traverses cellular membranes, a portion of it is stored within the resistive sections, resulting in a phase shift [2]. As a general rule, it is negatively correlated with the ratios of extra-to-intracellular water, age, and body mass index (BMI) but positively associated with physical activity [3,4].
The PhA’s impact has been evaluated in a wide range of malignancies and diseases such as sarcopenia [5,6,7], acute stroke [8], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [8,9], liver cirrhosis [10], severe obesity [2], locomotive syndrome [11], cancer [12] and even in outpatient palliative cancer care settings [13]. In cancer patients, the PhA is considered a prognostic factor for survival [14,15], and it can predict postoperative infectious complications [16]. The PhA is frequently lower than normal in disease patients since processes such as inflammation, infection, or disease-specific events may impair the PhA [17]. Such alterations in the PhA can be measured through bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), a simple, fast, non-invasive and reproducible tool to assess body composition [18]. Furthermore, it can be performed at the bedside of critical patients to measure body composition [19]. The PhA has also been used as a nutritional status marker because the measured values reflect the amounts of various tissue components and hydration status [2]. The results of previous research suggest that there are some alterations in the electrical properties of tissues with malnutrition that can be detected by BIA, giving alterations in the PhA values. Currently, there are no cut-off points for malnutrition states but there are cut-off points for sarcopenia and frailty patterns in older adults, with a PhA value of ≤ 4.1 degrees being risky values [20].
In the assessment of sarcopenia and frailty in cancer patients, often due to nutritional problems, it is vital to record parameters related to these because, due to the side effects of treatments, many patients suffer from these conditions. The presence of sarcopenia in older adults has been related to increased functional impairment, disability, risk of falls and fractures, loss of independence, and death [21].
Another aspect to consider in cancer patients is their perception of their health. This is usually measured by different questionnaires such as the general health status indicator, which measures eight dimensions of health: physical function, physical role, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social function, emotional role and mental health (SF-36) in primary care [22,23] and in cancer [24,25]. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire encompasses a set of distinct components designed to evaluate the impact of cancer on individuals. It consists of five functional items, namely physical role, cognitive, emotional, and social functioning. In addition, it includes three symptom items focusing on fatigue, pain, and nausea–vomiting. Furthermore, there is a single item dedicated to assessing the global health status and overall quality of life [26,27,28,29]. The states of fatigue in different aspects of life (FACIT) is a specific instrument that objectively assesses health-related quality of life in patients with advanced or life-limiting chronic diseases [26,30]. Finally, the perception of general health (GHQ-12) is a screening instrument that aims to detect psychological morbidity and possible cases of psychiatric disorders in settings such as primary care [31,32,33]. The questionnaires chosen are all validated and have been used in previous research. They are also widely used by health professionals due to their reliability. Although there is a wide variety of questionnaires, these were chosen according to the criteria of mental health specialists. Some questionnaires are specific to the disease studied.
In previous research, it has been shown that the psychological state of cancer patients is significantly worsened compared to the healthy population. Psychological stressors for the majority of the population, such as COVID-19 [34,35,36], had no effect on cancer patients, possibly due to the previous psychological impairment of the patients [37].
A previous study by our research group has shown the relationship between the PhA and physical performance [38]. However, to our knowledge, the relationship between PhA and psychological aspects has not been discussed. To fill this gap, this study used the GHQ-12, FACIT, SF-36 and QLQ-C30 items to relate questionnaire results to the PhA values in cancer patients.
Regarding the use of PhA, a recent systematic review with meta-analysis explained that predicting survival in patients with advanced cancer remains a challenge but findings suggest that the PhA may be an important factor in this population [39].
Therefore, and considering the above, this article aims to: (1) evaluate the relationship between PhA and physiological state and (2) be able to use a predictive methodology for psychological state using the PhA as a measured value.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

The implementation of the program was overseen by the Primary Care Research Unit, which operates under the Bizkaia-Biocruces Bizkaia Research Institute and the University of Deusto. This initiative is executed through a network of health centers that are equipped with Bizi Orain exercise laboratories. These laboratories are seamlessly integrated into the public health system of the Basque Country, known as Osakidetza. The present study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional design and focused on a sample of individuals who have received a cancer diagnosis. Bizi Orain is an evidence-based exercise program that aligns with the guidelines established by the American College of Sports Medicine for cancer survivors [40]. The study lasted 12 months and was divided into two phases. During the first three months, participants were randomly assigned to a group that received both the Bizi Orain exercise program and a behavioral intervention to promote healthy habits, or to a group that received only the healthy habits prescription. After three months, participants in the second group started the exercise program. During the last six months of the study, participants continued with their daily activities and were evaluated at 6 and 12 months before the end of their participation in the study. During this time, PhA measurements were obtained and used for further data analysis.
Each study participant was informed of all study procedures, signed the consent form about the tests performed, and completed all study procedures.

2.2. Participants

Anyone with a cancer diagnosis currently receiving treatment or diagnosed less than two years earlier was eligible to participate. The participants included in this study were referred by their respective oncologists or hematologists at Cruces, Basurto, and Galdakao University Hospitals, located in Bizkaia, Basque Country, Spain. These referrals were made as part of the main project, which established the study’s selection and exclusion criteria in detail [41].
To ensure ethical compliance, this study adheres to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent revisions, as well as good clinical practice. The Ethics Committee of the Basque Country granted approval for this study to be conducted in the health centers, guaranteeing compliance with all relevant regulations (Code: PI2019016).
Regarding data confidentiality, only the designated study researchers had access to patient data, which was provided voluntarily by the participants. The handling of this data adhered to the requirements outlined in the Organic Act 15/1999 of December 2013, which concerns the protection of personal data, as well as its 2011 revision.
It is important to note that this project is part of a broader initiative focusing on recovery, stress balance, and injury in sports, which received approval from the Institutional Review Board. All participants involved in the study provided informed consent prior to their involvement.

2.3. Measurements

During the period spanning July 2019 to July 2022, patients underwent physical and psychological evaluations at the University of Deusto (Spain). The assessments were conducted at the time of study enrollment and subsequently at 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals. Consistent with maintaining standardization, these evaluations were conducted within the same time frame each day, specifically from 9:00 to 14:00. Furthermore, the evaluations took place under similar environmental conditions, ensuring that the temperature remained at approximately ±21 °C, the relative humidity was maintained between 50 and 55%, and the barometric pressure hovered around ±720 mmHg.
The patients’ height was measured utilizing a wall stadiometer (Seca, Hamburg, Germany). In addition, body composition measurements were obtained using an Inbody 770 bioimpedance analyzer (Inbody, Seoul, Korea). These measurement procedures strictly adhered to the established protocol to ensure accuracy and consistency [42]. The use of the Inbody 770 device as a meter is validated against the gold standard DEXA with 98% correlation [43]. The measurements were taken standing up because research has shown that position from which the PhA is taken interferes with some of the values, so the way in which the bioimpedance was measured should always be known [44]. The PhA is compounded by two elements: the reactance (X) and the resistance (R). It should be noted that this measurement is a direct assessment of the cell membrane, and not a calculation based on indirect equations. The formula for the phase angle is:
φ = arctg X/R
A series of questionnaires with sound psychometric properties were used to assess general health, cancer-specific quality of life, and cancer-related fatigue. These questionnaires were those used in practice by the clinicians in the hospitals involved in the study. The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) is used to assess general health-related quality of life status [23,41], and cancer-specific quality of life is assessed by the Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C-30). The SF-36 consists of eight scaled scores obtained through the weighted sums of the questions in each section. Each scale is directly transformed into a 0–100 scale, assuming that each question carries equal weight. The lower the score, the higher the impediment, the higher the score, the lower the disability [29,41]. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) assesses psychological morbidity and possible psychiatric disorders [32,41]. Items on the GHQ-12 are rated on a 4-point scale using a timeframe of “the last two weeks.” There are three ways of scoring the GHQ-12: the bimodal GHQ scoring method (0-0-1-1), recommended by the test authors for use in clinical settings; the Likert scoring method (0-1-2-3), which is commonly used in research; and the C-GHQ scoring method where positively phrased items are scored (0-0-1-1) and negatively phrased items (0-1-1-1) [45]. The more severe the problem, the higher the score (with a maximum of 9 for each of the subscales). Finally, cancer-related fatigue is assessed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale [28,41]. The FACIT-Fatigue Scale is a short, 13-item, easy-to-administer tool that measures an individual’s level of fatigue during their usual daily activities over the past week. The level of fatigue is measured on a four-point Likert scale (4 = not at all fatigued to 0 = very much fatigued), lower test scores indicate greater fatigue [46].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Mixed linear regression models were employed to examine the association between the PhA and the psychological tests (SAS: PROC MIXED), which accommodate the inherent correlations observed in repeated measurements within each patient. Adjustment variables such as age, sex, cancer type, stage, treatments, smoking status, and comorbidities were incorporated into the analysis. Importantly, none of these variables exhibited any missing values.
A stepwise backward strategy was employed to identify the most appropriate model, guided by likelihood ratio tests. The selection process involved iteratively removing variables that did not significantly contribute to the model’s explanatory power, with a significance criterion set at p < 0.05. The final model was determined by following this rigorous approach, ensuring a robust and reliable analysis. We reported the proportion of variance explained by the fixed variables in the models using the marginal R square obtained by the Nakagawa method [47]. We also performed correlation tests between the PhA and the psychological variables. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4 and R.

3. Results

Of the 311 patients included in the study, 309 had at least one PhA measurement, 239 had at least two measurements, 205 had at least three measurements, and 121 had four measurements. Therefore, the total data are 874 PhA measurements; each accepted measurement of PhA had to go with the corresponding results of the questionnaires, thus providing the data of both PhA and the psychological situation at each moment, Within the mixed statistical model, the special feature of these measurements is taken into account. Table 1 shows the sample characteristics according to the main descriptive variables. The results of the questionnaires are presented in Table A2.
With regard to the results shown in Table 2, we appreciate the significant relationship that exists between GHQ-12 and FACIT values and PhA. It is known that the lower the score in the GHQ-12-questionnaire values, the better the general state of health of the patient and the higher the PhA, all with a high significance. Furthermore, observing the FACIT questionnaire, the higher the score, the lower the fatigue perceived by the questionnaire. A relationship was also observed between the FACIT questionnaire score and the PhA value.
Continuing with the results obtained, a high significance can also be seen between the SF-36 questionnaire and the PhA. Specifically, in the subclassification made by the questionnaire, a high relationship can be seen, except in the subclassification of the emotional role and pain index, where a relationship with the PhA cannot be seen. This questionnaire is interpreted as meaning that the lower the score, the greater the patient’s limitation in each of the subclassifications.
The QLQ-C30 questionnaire interprets higher scale scores as higher response levels. It is divided into two main scales, the functioning scale and the symptom scale. In the functioning scale, we can appreciate the relationship with the PhA except in the emotional and cognitive functioning parameters, which are not related to the PhA. In the symptom scale, only the parameters of fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and loss of appetite are related to PhA, with no clear relationship in the rest of the subclassifications. Further analysis and supplementary results can be found in Table A1.
Finally, we can see how the pain scale is measured using different questionnaires, SF-36 and QLQ-C30, and the relationship between this parameter and PhA was not significant in either case.
Further statistical analyses not relevant to the research have been added in Table A1.

4. Discussion

This study analyzed the possible associations between the PhA and the cancer patients’ subjective perception of several health parameters. Among the most relevant results, we found that while the relationship with PhA was high in the GHQ-12, FACIT, and SF-36 questionnaires, with higher PhA being associated with better results, a relationship with PhA was found in the functioning scale assessment items of the QLQ-C30 but not in most of its symptom scales.
Regarding the patient’s subjective assessment, the GHQ-12 questionnaire measures possible affective disorders in different populations [31]. Thus, as a valid tool, finding a high relationship with the PhA could help us predict affective disorders with other tools, such as the PhA. The results obtained in our research show how the two values, both the GHQ-12 score and the PhA, are closely correlated, with higher GHQ-12 values leading to higher PhA values.
In the same way that previous research has shown a relationship between PhA and better physical profiles [38], it is not uncommon to observe the same trend of higher PhA values with better psychological profiles. The relationship that PhA has with physical and psychological aspects could lead to the hypothesis that the better the physical health, the better the psychological health [48] and, therefore, the higher the PhA. Another possible hypothesis for this relationship between GHQ-12 values and PhA could be cellular integrity since patients with a better psychological profile could be those with more favorable cellular integrity [49].
Cancer-related fatigue is a common side effect of cancer treatment, so the fatigue questionnaire (FACIT) has long been used to assess and monitor this side effect [50], especially as a part of physical exercise programs. Our research has shown a close relationship between the values of this questionnaire and the PhA values measured, showing that higher PhA levels would result in lower fatigue as measured by the questionnaire. This result was discussed in previous research where a relationship between fatigue and PhA was observed, especially in cancer patients with PhA <4, but when adjusted for hydration parameters (intracellular and extracellular water), the association was reduced [51]. The relationship between these two parameters, fatigue and PhA, has an important relevance given that PhA values can be related to the fatigue questionnaire (FACIT) value, knowing that, in our study, for each one-grade increase in PhA, an improvement of 3.2 (1.99; 4.41) points in FACIT scores could be seen with a high relationship. This relationship between fatigue and PhA could be explained by the fact that PhA is an indicator of physical health in cancer patients [38], so lower PhA values indicate poorer physical condition, which could easily be associated with higher fatigue.
Looking at the SF-36 questionnaire results, which measured health-related quality of life, we observed a high relationship with the values obtained in PhA values. It is known that on most occasions, a better quality of life is preceded by lifestyle changes, and this positively affects PhA. It has been seen that improving nutritional status by improving diet [52], practicing planned physical exercise or improving body composition [53,54] can lead to an improved quality of life and PHA. Therefore, improvement in any aspect that aids quality of life positively affects both SF-36 and PhA values.
The subsections measured by this SF-36 questionnaire are highly related to PhA with values of p < 0.05, except for the parameters of emotional role and pain, which have not been found to have a significant relationship. Emotional role measures the degree to which emotional problems interfere with work or other daily activities, so it can be extrapolated that there is no relationship between PhA and this measure, possibly because, in many cases, psychological problems do not affect their daily activities, although a large proportion report episodes of depression and anxiety [55]. These results may also be biased by possible psychiatric medication to control these depression and anxiety problems because at least 25–30% of cancer patients and an even higher percentage of those with advanced disease meet the criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis, including depression, anxiety, stress-related syndromes, adjustment disorders, sleep disorders, and delirium [56]. Previous studies showed that emotional role and one’s physical state negatively influenced each other, while fatigue and pain positively influenced each other. These results suggest that mind and body interact in a direct way [57], with differences in the results in our research.
The results obtained in the QLQ-C30, specifically those corresponding to the measurement of functioning scales, show how emotional functioning is unrelated to PhA. It should be noted that this same section was assessed in the SF-36 questionnaire, giving similar data regarding the non-significance of the relationship with PhA, confirming the non-significance of the relationship with PhA with two different tools. This could be because, as we have previously stated, the better or worse value of PhA is independent of the problems that the illness may cause in work or daily activities. Nutrition plays a fundamental role in the quality of life [52] and in the possibility of modifying PhA values. Therefore, a parameter related to nutrition could be the item that speaks of appetite loss measured with the QLQ-C30, which has a significant relationship with PhA. Thus, patients with low PhA have a significant loss of appetite.
The PhA’s relationship with pain is not significant for the results in the QLQ-C30 and the SF-36 questionnaires. The same parameter, measured with two different instruments, provided us with the important information that it does not have a relationship with the PhA.
Due to the novelty of the analyzed parameters and the relative association between the parameters, more and better research is needed to be able to apply this knowledge in daily practice although this research lays the foundation for further research regarding PhA in the management of cancer patients.
It is important to note that bioimpedance measurements obtained from single and multifrequency devices should not be treated as interchangeable. When evaluating highly active populations, there was a notable lack of consensus between devices when determining individual values such as R, Xc, Z, and PhA [58]. This discrepancy could be attributed to various methodological and biological factors. Consequently, if this methodology is to be applied in clinical practice, it is strongly advised to consistently use the same device, conduct measurements under as similar conditions as possible, and refrain from comparing results with data obtained from different devices or methodologies.

4.1. Limitations

There is evidence that PhA measurements can vary according to the measuring device and body position at the time of assessment (standing vs. supine) [44]. During this research, all measurements were made standing to avoid variance.
The sample was taken from a larger project that included cancer patients of all types and stages, so in order to have a good sample it was decided to include all patients knowing the limitation of the heterogeneity of the sample and its possible relationship to the results.
Mixed linear regression models may have limitations in interpretation and more research is needed to apply these regressions to everyday practice to obtain the desired uses.

4.2. Practical Applications

This research opens up a new possibility of having the tools to monitor fatigue in patients whose PhA drops. That is, FACIT questionnaires may be used to assess patient fatigue.
The relationship between most of the items in the questionnaire and the PhA opens up the possibility of carrying out a quick screening, knowing which patients would need more research into their subjective perception of health.

5. Conclusions

This study analyzed the possible associations between the PhA and cancer patients’ subjective perception of different health parameters. It could be seen that while in the GHQ-12, FACIT and SF-36 questionnaires, there was a correlation with PhA, with higher PhA being seen with better results in the questionnaires; in other questionnaires, such as the QLQ-C30, a relationship with PhA was seen in the functioning scale assessment items but not in the majority of the symptom scales. Therefore, the PhA is a good tool to assess the subjective health perception of a cancer patient and due to the regressions can make predictions of outcomes except for some items where the association is not significant. It should be noted that the correlation is low, despite being statistically significant, so the actual predictive value is limited.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.G.-S., A.M.A.-B., M.S.A., G.G., N.M.-G. and A.C.; methodology, B.G.-S., A.M.A.-B., A.C.-B., G.G. and A.C.; formal analysis, A.G.-Á. and A.C.; investigation, B.G.-S., A.M.A.-B., A.C.-B. and A.C.; resources, G.G., N.M.-G. and A.C.; data curation, A.G.-Á.; writing—original draft, B.G.-S., A.M.A.-B., A.C.-B. and A.C. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study has been funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the project “PI18-00929” (Co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund “A way to make Europe”/“Investing in your future”).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki, its revisions, and good clinical practice. The Ethics Committee of the Basque Country approved the study in the health centers ensuring it would be implemented in compliance with the established regulations (Code: PI2019016).

Informed Consent Statement

The project is part of a wider project on recovery, stress balance and injury in sports that has been approved by the IRB, and the participants provided informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

Regarding data confidentiality, only the study researchers have access to the data of individuals who agreed to participate in the study, in compliance with the Organic Act 15/1999 of December 2013 on the protection of personal data and its 2011 revision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Supplementary analysis.
Table A1. Supplementary analysis.
Questionnaire Estimate95%CIp-Value
SF36Physical Functioning
Intercept 47.26(33.64; 61.08)<0.001
PhA 7.08(4.62; 9.51)<0.001
Sex 0.079
MaleRef
Female−4.07(−8.54; 0.41)
Smoking 0.018
NeverRef
Ex-smoker−6.2(−10.48; −1.92)
Smoker−3.13(−8.55; 2.29)
Bone metastases−6.27(−11.43; −1.09)0.019
Hypertension−7.85(−13; −2.71)0.003
Hyperlipidemia−4.53(−9.57; 0.53)0.083
Physical Role
Intercept −2.51(−37.87; 33.59)0.890
PhA 10.89(5.2; 16.45)<0.001
Age <0.001
<45Ref
<60−2.89(−18.21; 12.37)
<7020.85(2.97; 38.68)
70+42.33(0.64; 84.03)
Sex 0.034
MaleRef
Female−9.66(−18.52; −0.85)
Hypertension−16.73(−26.2; −7.29)<0.001
Pain Index
Intercept 55.64(33.86; 77.81)<0.001
PhA 3.25(−0.17; 6.61)0.062
Age 0.01
<45Ref
<60−2.87(−12.7; 6.92)
<707.21(−4.26; 18.67)
70+21.13(−5.47; 47.84)
Sex <0.001
MaleRef
Female−10.55(−16.21; −4.91)
Smoking 0.047
NeverRef
Ex-smoker−6.38(−11.63; −1.11)
Smoker0.26(−6.43; 6.98)
Hypertension−7.47(−13.53; −1.45)0.017
General Health
Intercept 34.02(21.88; 46.22)<0.001
PhA 4.25(1.98; 6.5)<0.001
Stage 0.001
IRef
II0.93(−5.16; 7.01)
III−0.83(−7.31; 5.66)
IV−7.64(−13.38; −1.89)
Diabetes 9.08(2.2; 15.96)0.011
COPD −7.39(−16.03; 1.24)0.097
Vitality
Intercept 14.77(−2.85; 32.64)0.106
PhA 7.74(5; 10.43)<0.001
Age 0.003
<45Ref
<603.92(−4.27; 12.11)
<7013.14(3.68; 22.61)
70+20.66(−0.99; 42.39)
Sex 0.027
MaleRef
Female−5.34(−10.02; −0.69)
Smoking 0.023
NeverRef
Ex-smoker−5.64(−10.04; −1.23)
Smoker1.21(−4.56; 6.99)
COPD −10.4(−19.62; −1.2)0.029
Social Functioning
Intercept 21.33(1.58; 41.36)0.035
PhA 8.96(5.58; 12.27)<0.001
Age <0.001
<45Ref
<604.86(−5.34; 15.05)
<7017.38(5.67; 29.07)
70+26.31(−1.01; 53.65)
Hyperlipidemia−5.96(−12.03; 0.11)0.057
Emotional Role
Intercept 62.26(26.66; 98.22)<0.001
PhA 0.86(−4.75; 6.42)0.764
Age 0.024
<45Ref
<609.7(−6.23; 25.59)
<7024.22(5.89; 42.48)
70+14.73(−27.63; 57.06)
Sex 0.062
MaleRef
Female−8.76(−17.87; 0.31)
COPD −19.64(−37.41; −1.93)0.032
Mental Health
Intercept 43.61(26.19; 61.32)<0.001
PhA 4.03(1.5; 6.52)0.002
Age 0.012
<45Ref
<602.42(−5.6; 10.42)
<7010.82(1.65; 19.98)
70+10.99(−10.28; 32.26)
Sex 0.007
MaleRef
Female−6.62(−11.34; −1.94)
Stage 0.032
IRef
II9.19(3.02; 15.35)
III4.12(−2.48; 10.72)
IV5.65(−0.27; 11.56)
COPD −9.76(−18.64; −0.91)0.034
Standarized Physical Component
Intercept 28.31(21.85; 34.9)<0.001
PhA 3.17(2.07; 4.25)<0.001
Age 0.054
<45Ref
<60−1.35(−4.71; 2.01)
<701.51(−2.36; 5.38)
70+4.11(−5.01; 13.23)
Smoking 0.068
NeverRef
Ex-smoker−1.92(−3.73; −0.11)
Smoker0.53(−1.76; 2.82)
Bone metastases−2.1(−4.29; 0.09)0.064
Hypertension−3.96(−6.02; −1.91)<0.001
Standarized Mental Component
Intercept 28.05(18.94; 37.21)<0.001
PhA 2.51(0.99; 4.02)0.001
Age <0.001
<45Ref
<603.85(−1.06; 8.76)
<709.77(4.21; 15.34)
70+8.98(−4.24; 22.22)
Diabetes 4.19(−0.15; 8.52)0.061
COPD −5.69(−11.14; −0.26)0.043
EORT QLQ-30
Global Health Status/QoL
Intercept 32.54(17.73; 47.4)<0.001
PhA 5.56(3.06; 8.05)<0.001
Age <0.001
<45Ref
<601.4(−6.18; 8.97)
<7012.13(3.57; 20.7)
70+8.98(−11.1; 29.1)
COPD −8.83(−17.24; −0.43)0.042
Physical functioning
Intercept 67.11(57.64; 76.68)<0.001
PhA 4.72(3; 6.43)<0.001
Sex 0.019
MaleRef
Female−3.8(−6.95; −0.66)
Bone metastases−4.76(−8.44; −1.07)0.013
COPD −6.53(−12.77; −0.3)0.042
Hyperlipidemia−4.46(−7.72; −1.2)0.008
Role functioning
Intercept 50.65(29.75; 72.08)<0.001
PhA 6.7(3.55; 9.78)<0.001
Age <0.001
<45Ref
<60−0.18(−8.62; 8.19)
<7013.89(4.05; 23.67)
70+31.91(9.15; 54.64)
Sex 0.044
MaleRef
Female−6.19(−12.09; −0.36)
Cancer type 0.034
BreastRef
Colorectal−4.95(−12.86; 2.97)
Hematologic−3.22(−9; 2.54)
Ovary−4.65(−13.74; 4.4)
Pancreas−10.53(−20.7; −0.5)
Lung9.66(0.35; 18.85)
Other−4.15(−11.74; 3.45)
Bone metastases−5.84(−11.33; −0.3)0.043
COPD −14.17(−23.88; −4.53)0.005
Hypertension−4.61(−9.82; 0.55)0.09
Emotional functioning
Intercept 67.18(49.51; 84.98)<0.001
PhA 1.86(−0.87; 4.57)0.181
Age 0.002
<45Ref
<604.75(−3.64; 13.14)
<7014.21(4.65; 23.76)
70+18.54(−3.69; 40.77)
Sex <0.001
MaleRef
Female−8.33(−13.1; −3.57)
Cognitive functioning
Intercept 88.44(74.3; 102.62)<0.001
PhA 0.52(−2.06; 3.09)0.693
Sex <0.001
MaleRef
Female−9.69(−14.57; −4.81)
COPD −8.29(−17.94; 1.37)0.094
Social functioning
Intercept 21.45(2.12; 40.98)0.032
PhA 7.16(3.88; 10.41)<0.001
Age <0.001
<45Ref
<6016.87(6.88; 26.85)
<7031.68(20.4; 42.94)
70+26.44(−0.49; 53.39)
Bone metastases−7.87(−14.43; −1.31)0.02
Diabetes 7.86(−0.99; 16.69)0.085
Fatigue
Intercept 55.77(36.81; 74.41)<0.001
PhA −5.65(−8.5; −2.75)<0.001
Age 0.048
<45Ref
<60−1.36(−10.02; 7.32)
<70−9.29(−19.28; 0.68)
70+−7.64(−30.26; 15.05)
Sex 0.015
MaleRef
Female6.12(1.27; 11)
Smoking 0.039
NeverRef
Ex-smoker5.89(1.3; 10.48)
Smoker0.6(−5.45; 6.63)
COPD 13.16(3.58; 22.8)0.008
Nausea and vomiting
Intercept 12.1(3.79; 20.36)0.005
PhA −1.61(−3.18; −0.02)0.047
Stage 0.041
IRef
II−0.16(−3.78; 3.46)
III4.24(0.4; 8.07)
IV1.99(−1.43; 5.41)
Pain
Intercept 20.28(0.93; 39.57)0.042
PhA −1(−4.01; 2.01)0.516
Age 0.021
<45Ref
<604.69(−4.05; 13.43)
<70−2.54(−12.76; 7.65)
70+−18.71(−42.47; 4.98)
Sex <0.001
MaleRef
Female10.98(5.96; 16.01)
COPD 9.12(−0.56; 18.84)0.069
Hypertension5.23(−0.16; 10.63)0.061
Dyspnoea
Intercept 10.32(−5.88; 26.26)0.21
PhA −1.32(−4.19; 1.6)0.373
Sex <0.001
MaleRef
Female9.61(4.66; 14.56)
Smoking 0.008
NeverRef
Ex-smoker7.28(2.59; 11.95)
Smoker4.71(−1.38; 10.78)
COPD 15.08(5.32; 24.85)0.003
Hypertension8.54(3.35; 13.76)0.002
Insomnia
Intercept 18.28(−2.5; 39.05)0.085
PhA 1.2(−2.63; 5.02)0.54
Sex <0.001
MaleRef
Female13.09(6.44; 19.73)
Appetite loss
Intercept 12.55(−4.63; 29.61)0.157
PhA −2.39(−5.15; 0.42)0.098
Sex 0.001
MaleRef
Female9.39(3.83; 14.94)
Cancer type 0.002
BreastRef
Colorectal10.61(2.67; 18.52)
Hematologic0.67(−4.98; 6.35)
Ovary−5.77(−14.99; 3.47)
Pancreas18.05(8.1; 28.02)
Lung6.64(−2.17; 15.46)
Other5.87(−1.7; 13.47)
Stage 0.042
IRef
II−0.73(−6.88; 5.39)
III7.62(0.74; 14.42)
IV2.29(−4.01; 8.53)
Constipation
Intercept 30.48(14.37; 46.39)<0.001
PhA −3.25(−6.38; −0.08)0.046
Smoking 0.042
NeverRef
Ex-smoker6.96(1.58; 12.35)
Smoker1.33(−5.44; 8.09)
Cancer type 0.023
BreastRef
Colorectal−1.46(−10.42; 7.52)
Hematologic−5.04(−11.14; 1.04)
Ovary17.05(5.92; 28.2)
Pancreas3.07(−8.14; 14.24)
Lung3.69(−6.38; 13.78)
Other1.52(−6.54; 9.53)
Diarrhoea
Intercept 26.21(10.07; 42.18)0.002
PhA −1.7(−4.21; 0.87)0.201
Age 0.006
<45Ref
<60−11(−18.26; −3.86)
<70−14.35(−22.69; −6.15)
70+−24.68(−44.46; −5.07)
Smoking 0.038
NeverRef
Ex-smoker4.93(0.94; 8.93)
Smoker−0.67(−5.61; 4.31)
Cancer type 0.003
BreastRef
Colorectal9.92(3.19; 16.44)
Hematologic−3.35(−8.9; 2.13)
Ovary−4.7(−12.75; 3.36)
Pancreas7.51(−1.11; 16.09)
Lung−4.55(−12.06; 3.01)
Other0.5(−5.65; 6.65)
Surgery −4.47(−8.64; −0.3)0.043
Chemotherapy5.11(−0.35; 10.61)0.077
Diabetes 9.8(3.31; 16.51)0.005
Financial difficulties
Intercept 18.26(−1.62; 38.09)0.074
PhA 0.5(−2.71; 3.71)0.763
Age 0.002
<45Ref
<60−3.48(−14.73; 7.79)
<70−16.66(−29.39; −3.91)
70+−20.17(−49.84; 9.52)
Radiotherapy−5.25(−11.15; 0.66)0.085
COPD 13.4(0.97; 25.84)0.037
Golberg [GHQ-12]
Intercept 8.14(5.4; 10.86)<0.001
PhA −0.62(−1.06; −0.18)0.006
Age <0.001
<45Ref
<60−1(−2.37; 0.37)
<70−2.52(−4.06; −0.98)
70+−3.67(−7.32; −0.03)
Stage 0.062
IRef
II−1.42(−2.47; −0.36)
III−0.79(−1.91; 0.33)
IV−1.1(−2.1; −0.11)
FACIT
Intercept 26.96(19; 35.01)<0.001
PhA 2.65(1.41; 3.88)<0.001
Age 0.04
<45Ref
<60−0.03(−3.77; 3.7)
<703.5(−0.78; 7.77)
70+3.42(−6.46; 13.32)
Sex 0.04
MaleRef
Female−2.26(−4.39; −0.14)
Bone metastases−2.54(−4.98; −0.1)0.044
COPD −5.81(−9.96; −1.67)0.007
Table
Table A2. General questionnaire original data.
Table A2. General questionnaire original data.
QuestionnaireMean (SD)
GHQ-123.36 (3.63)
FACIT37.33 (9.53)
SF-36
  Physical functioning70.92 (20.91)
  Social functioning66.68 (27.58)
  Physical role70.92 (20.91)
  Emotional role67.85 (43.61)
  Mental health66.1 (19.69)
  Energy/vitality50.13 (21.13)
  Pain index58.47 (26.24)
  General health perception51.19 (17.77)
  Standardized physical comp.40.32 (8.28)
  Standardized mental comp.44.21 (12.38)
QLQ-C30
Functioning scales
  Global health status60.77 (19.62)
  Physical functioning84.69 (14.72)
  Role functioning74.65 (25.57)
  Emotional functioning75.54 (20.18)
  Cognitive functioning82.85 (22.33)
  Social functioning70.98 (27.77)
Symptom scale/items
  Fatigue33.64 (22.41)
  Nausea and vomiting7.2 (15.87)
  Pain27.33 (22.79)
  Dyspnoea15.86 (23.34)
  Insomnia35.6 (31.42)
  Appetite loss13.59 (22.68)
  Constipation18.23 (27.3)
  Diarrhoea12.19 (23.24)
  Financial difficulties13.03 (26.75)

References

  1. Langer, R.D.; da Costa, K.G.; Bortolotti, H.; Fernandes, G.A.; de Jesus, R.S.; Gonçalves, E.M. Phase angle is associated with cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition in children aged between 9 and 11 years. Physiol. Behav. 2020, 215, 112772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gonzalez, M.C.; Barbosa-Silva, T.G.; Bielemann, R.M.; Gallagher, D.; Heymsfield, S.B. Phase angle and its determinants in healthy subjects: Influence of body composition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr 2016, 103, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Genton, L.; Mareschal, J.; Norman, K.; Karsegard, V.L.; Delsoglio, M.; Pichard, C.; Graf, C.; Herrmann, F.R. Association of phase angle and running performance. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2020, 37, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mundstock, E.; Amaral, M.A.; Baptista, R.R.; Sarria, E.E.; Dos Santos, R.R.G.; Filho, A.D.; Rodrigues, C.A.S.; Forte, G.C.; Castro, L.; Padoin, A.V.; et al. Association between phase angle from bioelectrical impedance analysis and level of physical activity: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 38, 1504–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Di Vincenzo, O.; Marra, M.; Di Gregorio, A.; Pasanisi, F.; Scalfi, L. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived phase angle in sarcopenia: A systematic review. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 40, 3052–3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pérez Camargo, D.A.; Allende Pérez, S.R.; Verastegui Avilés, E.; Rivera Franco, M.M.; Meneses García, A.; Herrera Gómez, Á.; Ceniceros, V.I.U. Assessment and Impact of Phase Angle and Sarcopenia in Palliative Cancer Patients. Nutr. Cancer 2017, 69, 1227–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Valentino, N.P.; Gomes, T.L.N.; Barreto, C.S.; Borges, T.C.; Soares, J.D.P.; Pichard, C.; Laviano, A.; Pimentel, G.D. Low phase angle is associated with the risk for sarcopenia in unselected patients with cancer: Effects of hydration. Nutrition 2021, 84, 111122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abe, T.; Yoshimura, Y.; Imai, R.; Yoneoka, Y.; Tsubaki, A.; Sato, Y. Impact of Phase Angle on Physical Function in Patients with Acute Stroke. J. Stroke Cereb. Dis. Off. J. Natl. Stroke Assoc. 2021, 30, 105941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maddocks, M.; Kon, S.S.C.; Jones, S.E.; Canavan, J.L.; Nolan, C.M.; Higginson, I.J.; Gao, W.; Polkey, M.I.; Man, W.D.-C. Bioelectrical impedance phase angle relates to function, disease severity and prognosis in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clin. Nutr. 2015, 34, 1245–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Selberg, O.; Selberg, D. Norms and correlates of bioimpedance phase angle in healthy human subjects, hospitalized patients, and patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2002, 86, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Tanaka, S.; Ando, K.; Kobayashi, K.; Seki, T.; Hamada, T.; Machino, M.; Ota, K.; Morozumi, M.; Kanbara, S.; Ito, S.; et al. The decreasing phase angles of the entire body and trunk during bioelectrical impedance analysis are related to locomotive syndrome. J. Orthop. Sci. 2019, 24, 720–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Matias, C.N.; Cavaco-Silva, J.; Reis, M.; Campa, F.; Toselli, S.; Sardinha, L.; Silva, A.M. Phase Angle as a Marker of Muscular Strength in Breast Cancer Survivors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hui, D.; Dev, R.; Pimental, L.; Park, M.; Cerana, M.A.; Liu, D.; Bruera, E. Association Between Multi-frequency Phase Angle and Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer. J. Pain Symptom. Manag. 2017, 53, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Axelsson, L.; Silander, E.; Bosaeus, I.; Hammerlid, E. Bioelectrical phase angle at diagnosis as a prognostic factor for survival in advanced head and neck cancer. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2018, 275, 2379–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Paiva, S.I.; Borges, L.R.; Halpern-Silveira, D.; Assunção, M.C.F.; Barros, A.J.D.; Gonzalez, M.C. Standardized phase angle from bioelectrical impedance analysis as prognostic factor for survival in patients with cancer. Support. Care Cancer 2010, 19, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pena, N.F.; Mauricio, S.F.; Rodrigues, A.M.S.; Carmo, A.S.; Coury, N.C.; Correia, M.I.; Generoso, S.V. Association Between Standardized Phase Angle, Nutrition Status, and Clinical Outcomes in Surgical Cancer Patients. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 2019, 34, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Norman, K.; Stobäus, N.; Pirlich, M.; Bosy-Westphal, A. Bioelectrical phase angle and impedance vector analysis—Clinical relevance and applicability of impedance parameters. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 31, 854–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Andreoli, A.; Scalzo, G.; Masala, S.; Tarantino, U.; Guglielmi, G. Body composition assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Radiol. Med. 2009, 114, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Reis de Lima e Silva, R.; Porto Sabino Pinho, C.; Galvão Rodrigues, I.; Gildo de Moura Monteiro Júnior, J. Phase angle as an indicator of nutritional status and prognosis in critically ill patients. Nutr. Hosp. 2014, 31, 1278–1285. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rosas-Carrasco, O.; Ruiz-Valenzuela, R.E.; López-Teros, M.T. Phase Angle Cut-Off Points and Their Association With Sarcopenia and Frailty in Adults of 50-64 Years Old and Older Adults in Mexico City. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 617126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Visser, M.; Goodpaster, B.H.; Kritchevsky, S.B.; Newman, A.B.; Nevitt, M.; Rubin, S.M.; Simonsick, E.M.; Harris, T.B. Muscle Mass, Muscle Strength, and Muscle Fat Infiltration as Predictors of Incident Mobility Limitations in Well-Functioning Older Persons. J. Gerontol. Ser. A 2005, 60, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brazier, J.E.; Harper, R.; Jones, N.M.; O’Cathain, A.; Thomas, K.J.; Usherwood, T.; Westlake, L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992, 305, 160–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ware Jr, J.E.; Sherbourne, C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 1992, 30, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bunevicius, A. Reliability and validity of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in patients with brain tumors: A cross-sectional study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2017, 15, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Treanor, C.; Donnelly, M. A methodological review of the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) and its derivatives among breast cancer survivors. Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 339–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Penttinen, H.; Utriainen, M.; Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.-L.; Raitanen, J.; Sievänen, H.; Nikander, R.; Blomqvist, C.; Huovinen, R.; Vehmanen, L.; Saarto, T. Effectiveness of a 12-month Exercise Intervention on Physical Activity and Quality of Life of Breast Cancer Survivors; Five-year Results of the BREX-study. Vivo 2019, 33, 881–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fayers, P.M.; Aaronson, N.K.; Bjordal, K.; Groenvold, M.; Curran, D.; Bottomley, A.; on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual The EORTC QLQ-C30 Introduction. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Man 2001, 30, 1–67. Available online: http://www.eortc.be/qol/files/scmanualqlq-c30.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2002).
  28. Cella, D.; Nowinski, C.J. Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002, 83, S10–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Aaronson, N.K.; Ahmedzai, S.; Bergman, B.; Bullinger, M.; Cull, A.; Duez, N.J.; Filiberti, A.; Flechtner, H.; Fleishman, S.B.; De Haes, J.C.J.M.; et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993, 85, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Webster, K.; Cella, D.; Yost, K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: Properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2003, 1, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Goldberg, D.P.; Hillier, V.F. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol. Med. 1979, 9, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sánchez-López M del, P.; Dresch, V. The 12-Item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): Reliability, external validity and factor structure in the Spanish population. Psicothema 2008, 20, 839–843. [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldberg, D.P.; Gater, R.; Sartorius, N.; Ustun, T.B.; Piccinelli, M.; Gureje, O.; Rutter, C. The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol. Med. 1997, 27, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khatatbeh, M.; Khasawneh, A.; Hussein, H.; Altahat, O.; Alhalaiqa, F. Psychological Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Among the General Population in Jordan. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 618993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Serafini, G.; Parmigiani, B.; Amerio, A.; Aguglia, A.; Sher, L.; Amore, M. The psychological impact of COVID-19 on the mental health in the general population. QJM 2020, 113, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Saladino, V.; Algeri, D.; Auriemma, V. The Psychological and Social Impact of COVID-19: New Perspectives of Well-Being. Front Psychol. 2020, 11, 2550. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577684 (accessed on 1 January 2002). [CrossRef]
  37. Gutiérrez-Santamaría, B.; Castañeda-Babarro, A.; Arietaleanizbeaskoa, M.S.; Mendizabal-Gallastegui, N.; Grandes, G.; Coca, A. Physiological and mental health changes in cancer patients during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Sport Sci. Health 2022, 19, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gutiérrez-Santamaría, B.; Martinez Aguirre-Betolaza, A.; García-Álvarez, A.; Arietaleanizbeaskoa, M.S.; Mendizabal-Gallastegui, N.; Grandes, G.; Castañeda-Babarro, A.; Coca, A. Association between PhA and Physical Performance Variables in Cancer Patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Arab, A.; Karimi, E.; Vingrys, K.; Shirani, F. Is phase angle a valuable prognostic tool in cancer patients’ survival? A systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 40, 3182–3190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Patel, A.V.; Friedenreich, C.M.; Moore, S.C.; Hayes, S.C.; Silver, J.K.; Campbell, K.L.; Winters-Stone, K.; Gerber, L.H.; George, S.M.; Fulton, J.E.; et al. American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable Report on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Cancer Prevention and Control. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2019, 51, 2391–2402. Available online: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31626056 (accessed on 1 January 2002). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Arietaleanizbeaskoa, M.S.; Gil Rey, E.; Mendizabal Gallastegui, N.; García-Álvarez, A.; De La Fuente, I.; Domínguez-Martinez, S.; Pablo, S.; Coca, A.; Santamaría, B.G.; Grandes, G. Implementing Exercise in Standard Cancer Care (Bizi Orain Hybrid Exercise Program): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2021, 10, e24835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Walter-Kroker, A.; Kroker, A.; Mattiucci-Guehlke, M.; Glaab, T. A practical guide to bioelectrical impedance analysis using the example of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nutr. J. 2011, 10, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. McLester, C.N.; Nickerson, B.S.; Kliszczewicz, B.M.; McLester, J.R. Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women. J. Clin. Densitom. 2020, 23, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Więch, P.; Wołoszyn, F.; Trojnar, P.; Skórka, M.; Bazaliński, D. Does Body Position Influence Bioelectrical Impedance? An Observational Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Anjara, S.G.; Bonetto, C.; Van Bortel, T.; Brayne, C. Using the GHQ-12 to screen for mental health problems among primary care patients: Psychometrics and practical considerations. Int. J. Ment. Health Syst. 2020, 14, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Al-shair, K.; Muellerova, H.; Yorke, J.; Rennard, S.I.; Wouters, E.F.M.; Hanania, N.A.; Sharafkhaneh, A.; Vestbo, J. Examining fatigue in COPD: Development, validity and reliability of a modified version of FACIT-F scale. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2012, 10, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Nakagawa, S.; Johnson, P.C.D.; Schielzeth, H. The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J. R Soc. Interface 2017, 14, 20170213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ohrnberger, J.; Fichera, E.; Sutton, M. The relationship between physical and mental health: A mediation analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 195, 42–49. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617306639 (accessed on 1 January 2002). [CrossRef]
  49. Hui, D.; Moore, J.; Park, M.; Liu, D.; Bruera, E. Phase Angle and the Diagnosis of Impending Death in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Preliminary Findings. Oncologist 2019, 24, e365–e373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hauth, F.; De-Colle, C.; Weidner, N.; Heinrich, V.; Zips, D.; Gani, C. Quality of life and fatigue before and after radiotherapy in breast cancer patients. Strahlenther. Und Onkol. 2021, 197, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gomes, T.L.N.; Soares, J.D.P.; Borges, T.C.; Pichard, C.; Pimentel, G.D. Phase angle is not associated with fatigue in cancer patients: The hydration impact. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 74, 1369–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gupta, D.; Lis, C.G.; Dahlk, S.L.; King, J.; Vashi, P.G.; Grutsch, J.F.; Lammersfeld, C.A. The relationship between bioelectrical impedance phase angle and subjective global assessment in advanced colorectal cancer. Nutr. J. 2008, 7, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Campa, F.; Silva, A.M.; Toselli, S. Changes in Phase Angle and Handgrip Strength Induced by Suspension Training in Older Women. Int. J. Sport Med. 2018, 39, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. dos Santos, L.; Cyrino, E.S.; Antunes, M.; Santos, D.A.; Sardinha, L.B. Changes in phase angle and body composition induced by resistance training in older women. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 70, 1408–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gregurek, R.; Braš, M.; Đorđević, V.; Ratković, A.-S.; Brajković, L. Psychological problems of patients with cancer. Psychiatr. Danub. 2010, 22, 227–230. [Google Scholar]
  56. Grassi, L.; Caruso, R.; Hammelef, K.; Nanni, M.G.; Riba, M. Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in cancer-related psychiatric disorders across the trajectory of cancer care: A review. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 2014, 26, 44–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lee, Y.-S.; Jung, W.-M.; Jang, H.; Kim, S.; Chung, S.-Y.; Chae, Y. The dynamic relationship between emotional and physical states: An observational study of personal health records. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat 2017, 13, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Silva, A.M.; Matias, C.N.; Nunes, C.L.; Santos, D.A.; Marini, E.; Lukaski, H.C.; Sardinha, L.B. Lack of agreement of in vivo raw bioimpedance measurements obtained from two single and multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance devices. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 73, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample. The data is shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or percentage (%).
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample. The data is shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or percentage (%).
Variablen (%)Mean ± SD
AGE (years)311 (100)55.5 ± 10.9
SEX -
  FEMALE225 (72.3)
  MALE86 (27.65)
HEIGHT (cm) 164.7 ± 8.7
WEIGHT (kg) 70.9 ± 14.5
BMI (kg/m2) 26.1 ± 4.9
PhA (°) 4.9 ± 0.7
VO2peak (mL/kg/min) 15.3 ± 4
CHEMOTHERAPY274 (88.1)
RADIOTHERAPY92 (29.6)
BONE METASTASES50 (16.1)
SURGERY164 (52.9)
CANCER STAGE
  I48 (15.4)
  II80 (25.7)
  III62 (19.9)
  IV121 (38.9)
CANCER TYPE
  Breast132 (42.4)
  Colorectal24 (7.7)
  Hematologic69 (22.2)
  Ovary14 (4.5)
  Pancreas17 (5.5)
  Lung19 (6.1)
  Other36 (11.6)
SMOKING
  Never169 (54.3)
  Ex-smoker94 (30.2)
  Smoker48 (15.4)
COMORBIDITIES
  Diabetes27 (8.7)
  COPD16 (5.1)
  Heart failure8 (2.6)
  Hypertension68 (21.9)
  Hyperlipidemia70 (22.5)
BMI: body mass index; PhA: phase angle; VO2peak: peak consume of VO2; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Table
Table 2. Relationship between PhA and questionnaires.
Table 2. Relationship between PhA and questionnaires.
QuestionnaireMixed Linear Regression
Estimate (95% CI)
Size Effect		Mixed Linear Regression
p-Value		R2Pearson Coefficient Correlation
(95%CI)		Correlation
p-Value
GHQ-12−0.72 (−1.16; −0.27)0.002 *0.05 (0.01; 0.12)−0.05 (−0.12; 0.02)0.132
FACIT3.2 (1.99; 4.41)<0.001 *0.08 (0.04; 0.16)0.16 (0.09; 0.22)<0.001 *
SF-36
  Physical functioning7.99 (5.54; 10.44)<0.001 *0.14 (0.09; 0.21)0.23 (0.17; 0.3)<0.001 *
  Social functioning9.13 (5.67; 12.54)<0.001 *0.06 (0.03; 0.12)0.11 (0.04; 0.17)<0.001 *
  Physical role13.03 (7.4; 18.59)<0.001 *0.08 (0.03; 0.14)0.09 (0.02; 0.15)0.009 *
  Emotional role1.88 (−3.91; 7.62)0.5250.04 (0.02; 0.11)−0.01 (−0.07; 0.06)0.829
  Mental health4.34 (1.76; 6.9)<0.001 *0.10 (0.04; 0.20)0.11 (0.05; 0.18)<0.001 *
  Energy/vitality8.2 (5.38; 11)<0.001 *0.12 (0.07; 0.22)0.18 (0.12; 0.25)<0.001 *
  Pain index1.75 (−1.55; 5.03)0.2960.08 (0.04; 0.16)0.05 (−0.02; 0.11)0.176
  General health perception5.17 (2.78; 7.55)<0.001 *0.07 (0.04; 0.16)0.12 (0.05; 0.18)<0.001 *
  Standardized physical comp.3.02 (1.79; 4.22)<0.001 *0.10 (0.08; 0.20)0.16 (0.1; 0.23)<0.001 *
  Standardized mental comp.2.31 (0.68; 3.92)0.006 *0.06 (0.02; 0.14)0.05 (−0.01; 0.12)0.120
QLQ-C30
Functioning scales
  Global health status5.63 (2.91; 8.33)<0.001 *0.06 (0.02; 0.11)0.1 (0.04; 0.17)0.003 *
  Physical functioning 5.22 (3.34; 7.09)<0.001 *0.11 (0.07; 0.18)0.22 (0.15; 0.28)<0.001 *
  Role functioning7.86 (4.64; 11.05)<0.001 *0.11 (0.08; 0.20)0.14 (0.07; 0.2)<0.001 *
  Emotional functioning2.06 (−0.73; 4.84)0.1480.08 (0.03; 0.15)0.02 (−0.05; 0.09)0.538
  Cognitive functioning1.62 (−1.12; 4.36)0.2480.05 (0.02; 0.13)0.07 (0.01; 0.14)0.030 *
  Social functioning8.23 (4.66; 11.75)<0.001 *0.10 (0.05; 0.20)0.08 (0.01; 0.14)0.021 *
Symptom scale/items
  Fatigue−6.37 (−9.34; −3.36)<0.001 *0.09 (0.04; 0.18)−0.12 (−0.19; −0.06)<0.001 *
  Nausea and vomiting−2.15 (−3.81; −0.49)0.012 *0.02 (0.01; 0.06)−0.06 (−0.13; 0)0.057
  Pain −1.07 (−4.19; 2.06)0.5040.07 (0.03; 0.14)−0.03 (−0.1; 0.03)0.310
  Dyspnoea−1.58 (−4.8; 1.69)0.3410.08 (0.05; 0.18)−0.05 (−0.11; 0.02)0.152
  Insomnia0.58 (−3.56; 4.73)0.7860.03 (0.01; 0.10)−0.01 (−0.07; 0.06)0.819
  Appetite loss−3.73 (−6.38; −1.08)0.006 *0.07 (0.04; 0.18)−0.1 (−0.16; −0.03)0.004 *
  Constipation−2.79 (−6; 0.41)0.0890.05 (0.02; 0.13)−0.05 (−0.12; 0.02)0.142
  Diarrhoea−2.62 (−5.34; 0.1)0.0610.09 (0.05; 0.18)−0.02 (−0.08; 0.05)0.606
  Financial difficulties0.44 (−2.99; 3.87)0.8030.06 (0.03; 0.13)0.06 (−0.01; 0.12)0.101
* statistically significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gutiérrez-Santamaría, B.; Martinez Aguirre-Betolaza, A.; García-Álvarez, A.; Arietaleanizbeaskoa, M.S.; Mendizabal-Gallastegui, N.; Grandes, G.; Coca, A.; Castañeda-Babarro, A. Association between Phase Angle and Subjective Perceptions of Health Variables in Cancer Patients. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131852

AMA Style

Gutiérrez-Santamaría B, Martinez Aguirre-Betolaza A, García-Álvarez A, Arietaleanizbeaskoa MS, Mendizabal-Gallastegui N, Grandes G, Coca A, Castañeda-Babarro A. Association between Phase Angle and Subjective Perceptions of Health Variables in Cancer Patients. Healthcare. 2023; 11(13):1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131852

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gutiérrez-Santamaría, Borja, Aitor Martinez Aguirre-Betolaza, Arturo García-Álvarez, María Soledad Arietaleanizbeaskoa, Nere Mendizabal-Gallastegui, Gonzalo Grandes, Aitor Coca, and Arkaitz Castañeda-Babarro. 2023. "Association between Phase Angle and Subjective Perceptions of Health Variables in Cancer Patients" Healthcare 11, no. 13: 1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131852

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop