Shirley S Hwang1, Victor T Chang, Janet Cogswell, Basil S Kasimis. 1. Section Hematology/Oncology (111), Veterans Administration New Jersey Health Care System at East Orange, East Orange, New Jersey 07109, USA. shirley.hwang@med.va.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The correlation of fatigue levels with functional interference, symptom distress, and quality of life may help determine clinically significant fatigue levels. METHODS: One hundred eighty consecutive patients with cancer completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) General and Fatigue subscales (FACT-G and FACT-F, respectively), the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form (MSAS-SF), the Depression Scale (Zung), and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was determined for each patient. Multivariate analyses of variance were performed to compare fatigue models with different cut-off points to categorize fatigue levels. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to assess the association between fatigue severity and survival. RESULTS: Increased fatigue levels were associated with greater symptom distress and decreased quality of life. A model with usual fatigue cut-off points of 0 (no fatigue), 1-2 (mild fatigue), 3-6 (moderate fatigue), and 7-10 (severe fatigue) was optimal in relation to functional interference items (Wilks lambda, 0.36; F = 11.61; P < 0.0001), symptom distress scores (Wilks lambda, 0.52; F = 10.41; P < 0.0001), and quality-of-life scores (Wilks lambda, 0.50; F = 0.50; P < 0.0001). Fatigue severity predicted survival in univariate analysis (chi-square test, 25.42; P < 0.0001). The KPS, stage of disease, and number of symptoms independently predicted survival in patients with fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant fatigue levels are correlated with symptom and quality-of-life measurements. Patients with a usual fatigue severity > 3 or a worst fatigue severity > 4 on a 1-10 scale may require further assessment. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10507
BACKGROUND: The correlation of fatigue levels with functional interference, symptom distress, and quality of life may help determine clinically significant fatigue levels. METHODS: One hundred eighty consecutive patients with cancer completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) General and Fatigue subscales (FACT-G and FACT-F, respectively), the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form (MSAS-SF), the Depression Scale (Zung), and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was determined for each patient. Multivariate analyses of variance were performed to compare fatigue models with different cut-off points to categorize fatigue levels. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to assess the association between fatigue severity and survival. RESULTS: Increased fatigue levels were associated with greater symptom distress and decreased quality of life. A model with usual fatigue cut-off points of 0 (no fatigue), 1-2 (mild fatigue), 3-6 (moderate fatigue), and 7-10 (severe fatigue) was optimal in relation to functional interference items (Wilks lambda, 0.36; F = 11.61; P < 0.0001), symptom distress scores (Wilks lambda, 0.52; F = 10.41; P < 0.0001), and quality-of-life scores (Wilks lambda, 0.50; F = 0.50; P < 0.0001). Fatigue severity predicted survival in univariate analysis (chi-square test, 25.42; P < 0.0001). The KPS, stage of disease, and number of symptoms independently predicted survival in patients with fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant fatigue levels are correlated with symptom and quality-of-life measurements. Patients with a usual fatigue severity > 3 or a worst fatigue severity > 4 on a 1-10 scale may require further assessment. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10507
Authors: Robert Hung; Paul Krebs; Elliot J Coups; Marc B Feinstein; Bernard J Park; Jack Burkhalter; Jamie S Ostroff Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: David Cella; Hema N Viswanathan; Ron D Hays; Tito R Mendoza; Kevin D Stein; David J Pasta; Aimee J Foreman; Saroj Vadhan-Raj; Joel D Kallich Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yoon Jung Chang; Jung Suk Lee; Chang Geol Lee; Won Sup Lee; Keun Seok Lee; Soo-Mee Bang; Xin Shelley Wang; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland; Young Ho Yun Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Julia Mo; Amy K Darke; Katherine A Guthrie; Jeff A Sloan; Joseph M Unger; Dawn L Hershman; Mark O'Rourke; Marie Bakitas; Robert S Krouse Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-07-13
Authors: Gale Harding; David Cella; Don Robinson; Parthiv J Mahadevia; Jason Clark; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Lucienne A Reichardt; Jesse J Aarden; Rosanne van Seben; Marike van der Schaaf; Raoul H H Engelbert; Jos A Bosch; Bianca M Buurman Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 3.921