Premium
New challenges in psycho‐oncology: Studying the direct relationships between biological markers and patients' subjective experiences. Response to Cole
Author(s) -
Thong Melissa S.Y.,
Sprangers Mirjam A.G.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
psycho‐oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.41
H-Index - 137
eISSN - 1099-1611
pISSN - 1057-9249
DOI - 10.1002/pon.4935
Subject(s) - psychology , library science , medicine , humanities , art , computer science
We were very pleased to read that Cole highlights the translational implications of recent research developments in the stress response system in relation to cancer progression. Key factors associated with these new insights come from a better understanding of the interaction between the tumor and its surrounding microenvironment and contributions from social genomics, which has begun to map the biological pathways through which social and psychological processes can be involved in gene regulation. Cole helps us understand how biological pathways involved in stress response that is relevant for the field of psycho‐oncology. He thereby focuses on the intriguing yet understudied interplay between psychosocial interventions and their possible molecular effects on disease progression. For example, he comments, “... disease‐predictive molecular biomarkers provide new opportunities for gauging the biological impacts of psycho‐oncologic interventions, as well as selecting optimal intervention protocols on a patient‐specific basis.” (p. 2308). Cole finalizes his editorial with sketching a future where psycho‐ oncologists add to their tool kit of psychological assessments molecular measures to assess the somatic impact of psychological well‐being. We wholeheartedly endorse Cole's plea for such expansion of psycho‐ oncology's toolkit and research agenda. We believe the field of psycho‐oncology will further benefit from examining the direct relationships between genetic and molecular variables and biological pathways underlying patients' subjective experiences, such as quality of life (QOL). This idea is almost 15 years old. It was fueled by the emerging evidence of a genetic basis of QOL based on twin research that indicated heritability estimates for stress and QOL‐related domains such as mood and self‐reported health that were comparable or even higher than that of most diseases (20%‐40%). A stimulating first finding was the direct links between polymorphisms and cancer patients' QOL.