Confirming the Association Between Affective Disturbance and Perceived Cognitive Dysfunction Among Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Available Literature

Purpose: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women worldwide. While undergoing chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer, patients often report experiencing "chemobrain." Previous literature reports correlations between psychological distress and these perceived cognitive problems. The aim of the present study was to examine the strength of the association between affective disturbance and subjective cognitive dysfunction.Methods: This study included a meta-analysis of the literature reporting a correlation between mood and subjective cognitive dysfunction. Eight studies with 1344 breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy were selected based on stringent study inclusion criteria. Studies reporting a correlation coefficient between mood and subjective cognitive dysfunction were included.Results: In these data, there was no significant correlation between affective disturbance and subjective cognitive dysfunction. A random effects model yielded an overall weighted mean effect size of 0.12.Conclusion: Although this meta-analysis did not confirm the correlation between mood and subjective cognitive dysfunction, there was a clear association between these factors in the original disaggregated analyses, and they are clearly impactful from the time of diagnosis through long-term after care. The clinical implications of the present study and future directions for research are discussed.

Rotten Symbol Mongering: Scapegoating in Post-9/11 American War Literature

A rhetorical approach to the fiction of war offers an appropriate vehicle by which one may encounter and interrogate such literature and the cultural metanarratives that exist therein. My project is a critical analysis—one that relies heavily upon Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic method and his concepts of scapegoating, the comic corrective, and hierarchical psychosis—of three war novels published in 2012 (The Yellow Birds by Kevin Powers, FOBBIT by David Abrams, and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk by Ben Fountain). This analysis assumes a rhetorical screen in order to subvert and redirect the grand narratives the United States perpetuates in art form whenever it goes to war. Kenneth Burke’s concept of ad bellum purificandum (the purification of war) sought to bridge the gap between war experience and the discourse that it creates in both art and criticism. My work extends that project. I examine the symbolic incongruity of convenient symbols that migrate from war to war (“Geronimo” was used as code for Osama bin Laden’s death during the S.E.A.L team raid; “Indian Country” stands for any dangerous land in Iraq; hajji is this generation’s epithet for the enemy other). Such an examination can weaken our cultural “symbol mongering,” to borrow a phrase from Walker Percy. These three books, examined according to Burke’s methodology, exhibit a wide range of approaches to the soldier’s tale. Notably, however, whether they refigure the grand narratives of modern culture or recast the common redemptive war narrative into more complex representations, this examination shows how one can grasp, contend, and transcend the metanarrative of the typical, redemptive war story.