Introduction: In 2020, according to the Global Cancer Observatory, nearly 10 million people died of cancer. Amongst all cancers, breast cancer had the highest number of new cases and lung cancer had the highest number of deaths. Even though the literatures suggest a possible connection between psychological factors and cancer risk, their association throughout studies remains inconclusive. The present systematic review studied the connection between psychological factors and the risk of breast and lung cancer, prior to a cancer diagnosis. The (...) psychological factors of trauma, grief, and depression were studied.Methods: The current systematic review was carried out across multiple databases in two phases, an initial exploratory research in June 2020, refined with a second electronic research in December 2020. The inclusion criteria included studies describing the association between trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, grief, and depression with breast and lung cancer risk. The psychological data collection must have been carried out prior to a confirmed breast or lung cancer diagnosis, and accessed through self-report measures, questionnaires, clinical interviews, or clinical diagnoses. Study reports had to contain information about the incidence of cancer and effect size. The exclusion criteria were studies in which psychological factors were collected after cancer diagnosis.Results and Conclusion: A total of 26 studies were included. Although non-consensual, the findings from the present systematic review suggest that, in addition to the known risk factors, psychological factors may play an important role in the etiology of both breast and lung cancer. To include psychological factors as a variable that affects cancer development may be fundamental to opening new avenues for prevention and intervention.Systematic Review Registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [CRD42020209161]. (shrink)

The cognitive reserve is widely accepted as the active ability to cope with brain damage, using preexisting cognitive and compensatory processes. The common CR proxies used are the number of formal years of education, intelligence quotient or premorbid functioning, occupation attainment, and participation in leisure activities. More recently, it has employed the level of literacy and engagement in high-level cognitive demand of professional activities. This study aims to identify and summarize published methodologies to assess the CR quantitatively. We searched for (...) published studies on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science between September 2018 and September 2021. We only included those studies that characterized the CR assessment methodology. The search strategy identified 1,285 publications, of which 25 were included. Most of the instruments targeted proxies individually. The lack of a gold standard tool that incorporates all proxies and cognitive tests highlights the need to develop a more holistic battery for the quantitative assessment of CR. Further studies should focus on a quantitative methodology that includes all these proxies supported by normative data to improve the use of CR as a valid measure in clinical contexts. (shrink)