Skip to main content
Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute
Download PDF

The relationship between coping self-efficacy and B cells in breast cancer patients

Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute volume 35, Article number: 28 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Breast cancer is the most common tumor among women throughout the world. Diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are associated with stress and depression. Self-efficacy is one of the most important personal characteristics, studied in cancer, and is correlated with depression and immunity. The aim of the study is as follows:

1. Examining the correlation between coping self-efficacy with depression, DHEA levels, and immunity

2. Examining the correlation between depression and DHEA levels

3. Studying the effect of depression and DHEA levels on immunity

4. Examining the intermediate effect of DHEA levels on the correlation between coping self-efficacy and immunity

Methods

Thirty newly diagnosed breast cancer patients recruited from the Oncology Department, Kasr EL-Aini, Cairo University (ages 51.40 + 8.24 years) responded to two questionnaires: Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); blood samples were collected to measure the phenotype of patients’ cellular immunity and DHEA levels by flowcytometry and ELISA technique.

Results

There was a significant negative correlation between CSES and PHQ-9, a significant positive correlation between PHQ-9 and B-cell count, and there is a significant negative correlation between CSES and B-cell count. The presence of DHEA has no mediatory role on correlation between CSES and B-cell count.

Conclusion

This paper presents a new model of psychoneuroimmunology by suggesting an effect of coping self-efficacy on immunity against breast cancer patients.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death in women [1]. Breast cancer patients account for as much as 36% of cancer patients. An estimated 2089 million women were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018 [2]. It has been reported that 156 out of 200 women with breast cancer had suffered from a shocking life event, usually the loss of a dear friend or person in her life. Other recent research has confirmed that breast cancer patients report distress that negatively affects their immunity [3, 4].

Psychology and immunology are interrelated as reflected in the development of psycho-oncology and psychoneuroimmunology, which have received increasing attention in recent years [5]. And the role of the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis in studying psychoneuroimmunology has been documented [6, 7].

Previous cancer research has found a significant correlation between patients’ mental health status or personality traits and patient’s immunity against cancer. For example, research examining the correlation between locus of control and immune status in breast cancer patients confirmed that there is a positive correlation between high internal locus of control belief with natural killer cells (NK) cells and T-helper cells, and a significant inverse correlation was found between doctor health locus of control with NK, T helper, and Treg cells [8]. Another study of breast cancer patients found a significant negative correlation between God health locus of control belief and interleukin-6 (IL-6) [9].

One of the most important personal characteristics relevant to coping with the stress of being diagnosed with breast cancer is coping self-efficacy. Breast cancer patients with high coping self-efficacy have been shown to better manage their treatment side effects such as vasomotor symptoms, fatigue, pain, arthralgia, and neuralgia [10]. In breast cancer survivors, coping is very important in fighting cancer because it facilitates adaptation to illness [11].

Self-efficacy relates to one’s belief about the ability to perform coping behaviors such as stopping unpleasant thoughts when under stress [12]. High levels of self-efficacy decrease catecholamine secretion under stress [13]. A study of adolescents undergoing cancer treatment suggested that self-efficacy has a negative correlation with distress [14].

Another study suggested that higher levels of stress are related to low self-efficacy in college students [15]. A study on head and neck cancer patients suggested that high self-efficacy was significantly associated with less psychological distress [16].

These findings suggest that coping self-efficacy might be associated with dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) levels and immunity in breast cancer patients.

Therefore, this study examined the following:

The correlation between coping self-efficacy with depression, DHEA levels, and immunity

  1. 1.

    The correlation between depression and DHEA levels

  2. 2.

    The effect of depression and DHEA levels on immunity

  3. 3.

    The intermediate effect of DHEA levels on the correlation between coping self-efficacy and immunity

Materials and methods

Breast cancer patients’ population

Thirty newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (ages 38–67) were recruited for participation in this research from the Department of Clinical Oncology, Kasr EL-Aini, Cairo University, from January 2022 to January 2023. Cairo University’s ethics committee approved the protocol of this research (code: N-70–2022) at 20 October 2022. The documented pathological proofs of breast cancer and the clinical data were available from the Department of Clinical Oncology’s database, and the demographic data are available in Table 1.

Table 1 Breast cancer patients’ demography
Full size table

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Early diagnosed female breast cancer patients (have not received any type of cancer therapy); (2) breast cancer stage (0, I, II, III); (3) age ranging from 25 to 70; and (3) written informed consent. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Patients with a history of comorbid psychiatric disorders and (2) patients with diseases other than cancer that affect their immune status.

Coping self-efficacy

Coping self-efficacy, defined as a belief about the ability of an individual to perform specific coping behaviors, was measured by the Coping Self-efficacy Scale (CSES) [17]. The CSES consists of 26 items that ask the participant to rate their confidence in his or her ability to cope effectively with a number of challenges. For example, participants are asked, “When things aren’t going well for you, or when you’re having problems, how confident or certain are you that you can do the following….” Then responses for each item were on 11-point scale: (0, cannot do at all), (5, moderately certain can do), and (10, certain can do).

The total score of the CSES is created by summing up the item’s rating. A higher score indicates higher coping self-efficacy [17]. The CSES has been widely used in studying coping self-efficacy in a range of patient populations. The CSES has good reliability (r = 0.92).

The permission to use Coping Self-efficacy Scale was obtained from the original authors.

Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)

The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is a short self-report scale consisting of nine items to indicate the presence and symptoms severity of major depressive disorder [18]. PHQ-9 scale is the preferred screening tool, particularly in resource-limited settings, and it is recommended by the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [19].

Participants are asked to assess nine depressive symptoms items experienced by them over the last 14 days preceding the interview. The items share a common set of response options: (0, not at all), (1, several days), (2, more than half days), and (3, nearly every day). The total scores of the PHQ-9 scale range from zero to 27. Higher scores mean more severe depression [20].

The translation of the two scales was done by a rigorous translation approach; this involves three people who are highly familiar with Arabic and the English language.

Biological measurements

A 3-cm peripheral venous blood sample was collected from all patients between 9 am and 12 pm after the two psychological scales were filled to control for diurnal variation. A total of 1.5 cm of blood sample kept in a plain tube was spun at 3000 g for 10 min at 4–8 °C. Separated serum was stored at − 80 °C until assay for DHEA concentration. A total of 1.5 cm of the blood sample was dispensed in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) tubes and was used to assay patients’ immunity by flow cytometry. All blood specimens were de-identified and coded using study identification numbers.

Serum dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)

Diametra ELISA kit (Boldn, UK) was used for immunoenzymatic determinations of serum DHEA on the TECAN analyzer (Switzerland) following the manufacturer’s specifications.

Each sample was measured in duplicate. The investigating lab has broad experience in performing these assays.

Breast cancer patients’ cellular immunity

The immunity tests evaluated B cells: cluster of differentiation CD 20 + , total T cells: CD3 + , T-helper cells: CD4 + , CD3 + CD4 + , and cytotoxic T cells: CD8 + , CD3 + CD8 + by using CytoFLEX-flow cytometry instrument from Beckman Coulter (Brea, CA, USA). The immunophenotyping was performed on lymphocytes derived from viable white blood cells and CD45 gating. The antibodies used were CD3-PC5.5, CD4-FTC, CD8-PE, CD20-FITC, and CD45-PC7. Reagents were from Beckman Coulter. The staining of the cells by the antibody was made according to the manufacturer’s specifications.

Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables were presented as range, mean, and standard deviation (SD). Qualitative variables were presented as frequency and percentage (%).

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was done to estimate the degree of correlation between two quantitative variables. Mediation model was conducted to estimate the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable through a third explanatory one, known as a mediator variable.

Statistical analysis was done by SPSS v28 (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Correlation between the CSES and PHQ-9 in breast cancer patients.

Table 2 shows the correlation between the CSES scores with PHQ-9, and the results show that there is a significant negative correlation between CSES with PHQ-9 scores.

Table 2 Correlation between CSES scores and PHQ-9 in breast cancer patients
Full size table

Correlation between CSES and PHQ-9 scores with DHEA in breast cancer patients

Table 3 studies the correlation between CSES and PHQ-9 with DHEA; the results show that there is no significant correlation.

Table 3 Correlation between CSES and PHQ-9 scores with DHEA in breast cancer patients
Full size table

Correlation between CSES and PHQ-9 with immunological parameters as a percentage of total lymphocytes in breast cancer patients

Table 4 is studying the correlation between CSES and PHQ-9 with immunological parameters (CD3 + T cells%, CD4 + T cells%, CD8 + T cells%, CD20 + B cells%, CD3 + CD8 + T cells%, and CD3 + CD4 + T cells%). The results show that there is a significant positive correlation between CSES and CD20 + B cells% and significant positive correlation between PHQ-9 and CD20 + B cells%.

Table 4 Correlation between the CSES and PHQ-9 with immunological parameters as a percentage of total lymphocytes in breast cancer patients
Full size table

Correlation between DHEA and immunological parameters as a percentage of total lymphocytes in breast cancer patients

Table 5 is studying the correlation between DHEA and immunological parameters (CD3 + T cells%, CD4 + T cells%, CD8 + T cells%, CD20 + B cells%, CD3 + CD8 + T cells%, and CD3 + CD4 + T cells%). The results show that there is no significant correlation between DHEA and immunological parameters.

Table 5 Correlation between DHEA and immunological parameters as a percentage of total lymphocytes in breast cancer patients
Full size table

The intermediate role of DHEA in the correlation between the CSES and CD20 + B cells% in breast cancer patients

DHEA had an insignificant intermediate effect on the relationship between CSES and CD20 + B cells% as 0 was contained in the confidence interval.

Once the intermediate effect of DHEA was removed, CSES had a significant effect on CD20 + B cells% with a direct effect of − 0.037 (95% CI: − 0.069, − 0.004) (Table 6).

Table 6 Bootstrap indirect and direct effects analysis of nonparametric ratios
Full size table

Discussion

The correlation between psychological status and the efficiency of the immune system has been confirmed by many psychoneuroimmunology studies [21]. The results of this study are consistent with the psychoneuroimmunology framework by suggesting a negative correlation between CSES and CD20 + B cells% in breast cancer patients.

Our study proposed the following hypotheses:

  • 1) There is a correlation between CSES and PHQ-9 scores.

  • 2) CSES, PHQ-9, and DHEA effect on immunological parameters (CD3 + T cells%, CD4 + T cells%, CD8 + T cells%, CD20 + B cells%, CD3 + CD8 + T cells%, and CD3 + CD4 + T cells%).

  • 3) DHEA mediated the correlation between CSES with immunological parameters.

Regarding the first hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between CSES and PHQ-9, our results confirmed that there is a negative correlation between CSES and PHQ-9. Thus, patients with high coping self-efficacy have fewer depression symptoms than patients with low coping self-efficacy. Our results are consistent with a research study on coronary heart disease which suggested that depressed mood was associated with lower perceived health competence (a =  − 0.21, p< 0.001) [22]. A study of melanoma patients suggested that increasing self-efficacy for coping with cancer decreased symptoms of depression among cancer patients [23]. Also, our study is consistent with a study of doctoral students that found a negative correlation between self-efficacy and depression [24], and another study on newly HIV diagnosed which confirmed that higher general self-efficacy was associated with lower levels of depression [25].

Regarding the second hypothesis that CSES, PHQ-9, and DHEA effect on immunological parameters (CD3 + T cells%, CD4 + T cells%, CD8 + T cells%, CD20 + B cells%, CD3 + CD8 + T cells%, and CD3 + CD4 + T cells%). Our results show that there is a significant positive correlation between PHQ-9 and CD20 + B cells% and negative correlation between CSES and CD20 + B cells%. DHEA has no significant effect on immunological parameters. Our result is not consistent with two studies on male breast cancer and prostate cancer made by Yang and his colleaguesin 2018 using a Brief version of cancer behavior inventory to measure patients’ self-efficacy and suggested that there is no significant correlation between self-efficacy and CD19 + B cells [26, 27]. These studies, however, did not use the CSES to assess self-efficacy but rather relied on a brief version of the Cancer Behavior Inventory. Using different scales may be the reason for different results. Also, our results are consistent with two studies in human depression that have shown reduced IL-10 and producing regulatory B cells in patients compared with nondepressed controls [28, 29].

Regarding the third hypothesis that DHEA would mediate the correlation between the CSES with immunological parameters, our results rejected this hypothesis. There is a significant negative correlation between scores on the CSES and B cells. But the presence of DHEA converts this correlation to non-significant. According to our knowledge, there is no previous research that studied the role of DHEA on mediating the correlation between coping self-efficacy and immunological parameters. More research is recommended to explain the mechanism of correlation between CSES scores and immunological parameters.

Conclusion

B cells may have pro- or anti-tumorigenic responses in the tumor microenvironment as there is a heterogeneous population of B cells with different functions. Our research suggested a decreasing effect of CSES on B cells. And this relationship presents new model of psychoneuroimmunology.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

* :

Significant as P-value ≤ 0.05

CD:

Cluster of differentiation

CSES:

Coping Self-efficacy Scale

DHEA:

Dehydroepiandrosterone

EDTA:

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

IL-6:

Interleukin-6

LLCI:

Lower limit of 95% confidence interval

NK:

Natural killer cells

PHQ-9:

Patient Health Questionnaire

r:

Correlation coefficient

SD:

Standard deviation

ULCI:

Upper limit of 95% confidence interval

References

  1. Smolarz B, Nowak AZ, Romanowicz H. Breast cancer-epidemiology, classification, pathogenesis and treatment (review of literature). Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(10):2569.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Nardin S, Mora E, Varughese FM, D’Avanzo F, Vachanaram AR, Rossi V, et al. Breast cancer survivorship, quality of life, and late toxicities. Front Oncol. 2020;10:864.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Omari M, Zarrouq B, Amaadour L, Benbrahim Z, El Asri A, Mellas N, et al. Psychological distress, coping strategies, and quality of life in breast cancer patients under neoadjuvant therapy: protocol of a systematic review. Cancer Control. 2022;29:10732748221074736.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu HM, Ma LL, Li C, Cao B, Jiang Y, Han L, et al. The molecular mechanism of chronic stress affecting the occurrence and development of breast cancer and potential drug therapy. Transl Oncol. 2022;15(1):10–28.

  5. Fox S, Lynch J, D'Alton P, Carr A. Psycho-oncology: a bibliometric review of the 100 most-cited articles. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(8).

  6. Maier SF, Watkins LR, Fleshner M. Psychoneuroimmunology. The interface between behavior, brain, and immunity. Am Psychol. 1994;49(12):1004–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pariante CM, Lightman SL. The HPA axis in major depression: classical theories and new developments. Trends Neurosci. 2008;31(9):464–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. El-Baiomy EM, Salem ML, El-Amir A, Sabry NA, Wallston KA, El-Mashad N. Correlations between MHLC scores and indicators of immune response in Egyptian women with breast cancer. Gulf J Oncolog. 2020;1(32):7–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. EL-Amir A, Salem ML, Sabry NL, EL-Baiomy EM, EL-Mashad N. Relationship between locus of control belief and IL-6 in breast cancer patients. Int J Cancer Res. 2017;1(1):21–4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Porter LS, Keefe FJ, Garst J, McBride CM, Baucom D. Self-efficacy for managing pain, symptoms, and function in patients with lung cancer and their informal caregivers: associations with symptoms and distress. Pain. 2008;137(2):306–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Akin S, Can G, Durna Z, Aydiner A. The quality of life and self-efficacy of Turkish breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12(5):449–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bandura A, Reese L, Adams NE. Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982;43:5–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bandura A, Taylor CB, Williams SL, Mefford IN, Barchas JD. Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985;53:406–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu WW, Yu TH, Jou ST, Hung GY. Physical activity self-efficacy mediates the effect of symptom distress on exercise involvement among adolescents undergoing cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019;28(4):e13045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roddenberry A, Renk K. Locus of control and self-efficacy: potential mediators of stress, illness, and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2010;41(4):353–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Offerman MP, Schroevers MJ, van der Velden LA, de Boer MF, Pruyn JF. Goal processes & self-efficacy related to psychological distress in head & neck cancer patients and their partners. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2010;14(3):231–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chesney MA, Neilands TB, Chambers DB, Taylor JM, Folkman S. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br J Health Psychol. 2006;11(Pt 3):421–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2002;32(9):509–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5™, 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.; 2013. p. xliv, 947-53.

  20. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Moraes LJ, Miranda MB, Loures LF, Mainieri AG, Mármora CHC. A systematic review of psychoneuroimmunology-based interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2018;23(6):635–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yeh VM, Mayberry LS, Bachmann JM, Wallston KA, Roumie C, Muñoz D, et al. Depressed mood, perceived health competence and health behaviors: across-sectional mediation study in outpatients with coronary heart disease. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(7):1123–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Albrecht K, Droll H, Giesler JM, Nashan D, Meiss F, Reuter K. Self-efficacy for coping with cancer in melanoma patients: its association with physical fatigue and depression. Psychooncology. 2013;22(9):1972–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu C, Wang L, Qi R, Wang W, Jia S, Shang D, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of depression and anxiety among doctoral students: the mediating effect of mentoring relationships on the association between research self-efficacy and depression/anxiety. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:195–208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang N, Wang S, Qian HZ, Ruan Y, Amico KR, Vermund SH, et al. Negative associations between general self-efficacy and anxiety/depression among newly HIV-diagnosed men who have sex with men in Beijing. China AIDS Care. 2019;31(5):629–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang N, Cao Y, Li X, Li S, Yan H, Geng Q. Mediating effects of patients’ stigma and self-efficacy on relationships between doctors’ empathy abilities and patients’ cellular immunity in male breast cancer patients. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:3978–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang N, Xiao H, Wang W, Li S, Yan H, Wang Y. Effects of doctors’ empathy abilities on the cellular immunity of patients with advanced prostate cancer treated by orchiectomy: the mediating role of patients’ stigma, self-efficacy, and anxiety. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1305–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmetspahic D, Schwarte K, Ambrée O, Bürger C, Falcone V, Seiler K, et al. Altered B cell homeostasis in patients with major depressive disorder and normalization of CD5 surface expression on regulatory B cells in treatment responders. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2018;13(1):90–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Duggal NA, Upton J, Phillips AC, Lord JM. Development of depressive symptoms post hip fracture is associated with altered immunosuppressive phenotype in regulatory T and B lymphocytes. Biogerontology. 2016;17(1):229–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all patients who participated in this study. Special thanks to the late Prof. Kenneth A. Wallston, of Vanderbilt University where he was Emeritus Professor of Psychology, College or Arts and Science, Professor of Nursing in the School of Nursing, and a Member of the Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Nashville, TN, USA, for supporting us with his great experience and expertise.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Immunology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Azza El-Amir & Eman M. El-Baiomy

  2. Psychiatry Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Noha A. Sabry

  3. Clinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Loay Kassem

  4. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Margaret A. Chesney

  5. Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Kenneth A. Wallston

Authors
  1. Azza El-Amir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eman M. El-Baiomy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noha A. Sabry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Loay Kassem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Margaret A. Chesney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kenneth A. Wallston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MC, AE, EM, and KW prepared the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection made by NS, LK, and EM, and medical analysis and statistical analysis were performed by EM, AE, and NS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by EM and AE, and EM, NS, LK, and MC commented on previous versions of the manuscript. EM and AE, EM, NS, LK, and MC read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eman M. El-Baiomy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Cairo University’s ethics committee approved the protocol of this research (code: N-70–2022) at 20 October 2022. And a written consent from participators were obtained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El-Amir, A., El-Baiomy, E.M., Sabry, N.A. et al. The relationship between coping self-efficacy and B cells in breast cancer patients. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 35, 28 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43046-023-00187-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43046-023-00187-y

Keywords