O Minton1, P Stone. 1. Division of Mental Health, St George's University of London, London, UK. ominton@sgul.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fatigue in cancer is very common and can be experienced at all stages of disease and in survivors. There is no accepted definition of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and no agreement on how it should be measured. A number of scales have been developed to quantify the phenomenon of CRF. These vary in the quality of psychometric properties, ease of administration, dimensions of CRF covered and extent of use in studies of cancer patients. This review seeks to identify the available tools for measuring CRF and to make recommendations for ongoing research into CRF. METHODS: A systematic review methodology was used to identify scales that have been validated to measure CRF. The inclusion criteria required the scale to have been validated for use in cancer patients and/or widely used in this population. Scales also had to meet a minimum quality score for inclusion. RESULTS: The reviewers identified 14 scales that met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used scales and best validated were the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Fatigue (FACT F), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) (fatigue subscale) and the Fatigue Questionnaire (FQ). CONCLUSIONS: Unidimensional scales are the easiest to administer and have been most widely used. The authors recommend the use of the EORTC QLQ C30 fatigue subscale or the FACT F. The FQ gives a multidimensional assessment and has also been widely used. A substantial minority of the scales identified have not been used extensively or sufficiently validated in cancer patients and cannot be recommended for routine use without further validation.
BACKGROUND:Fatigue in cancer is very common and can be experienced at all stages of disease and in survivors. There is no accepted definition of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and no agreement on how it should be measured. A number of scales have been developed to quantify the phenomenon of CRF. These vary in the quality of psychometric properties, ease of administration, dimensions of CRF covered and extent of use in studies of cancerpatients. This review seeks to identify the available tools for measuring CRF and to make recommendations for ongoing research into CRF. METHODS: A systematic review methodology was used to identify scales that have been validated to measure CRF. The inclusion criteria required the scale to have been validated for use in cancerpatients and/or widely used in this population. Scales also had to meet a minimum quality score for inclusion. RESULTS: The reviewers identified 14 scales that met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used scales and best validated were the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Fatigue (FACT F), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) (fatigue subscale) and the Fatigue Questionnaire (FQ). CONCLUSIONS: Unidimensional scales are the easiest to administer and have been most widely used. The authors recommend the use of the EORTC QLQ C30 fatigue subscale or the FACT F. The FQ gives a multidimensional assessment and has also been widely used. A substantial minority of the scales identified have not been used extensively or sufficiently validated in cancerpatients and cannot be recommended for routine use without further validation.
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Charles S Cleeland; Donald C Manning; Ann M O'Mara; Bryce B Reeve; Jane A Scott; Jeff A Sloan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer M Jones; Karin Olson; Pamela Catton; Charles N Catton; Neil E Fleshner; Monika K Krzyzanowska; David R McCready; Rebecca K S Wong; Haiyan Jiang; Doris Howell Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Neli Muraki Ishikawa; Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler; Alessandra Grasso Giglio; Clarissa Seródio da Rocha Baldotto; Carlos José Coelho de Andrade; Sophie Françoise Mauricette Derchain Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Barbara Deschler; Gabriele Ihorst; Uwe Platzbecker; Ulrich Germing; Eva März; Marcelo de Figuerido; Kurt Fritzsche; Peter Haas; Helmut R Salih; Aristoteles Giagounidis; Dominik Selleslag; Boris Labar; Theo de Witte; Pierre Wijermans; Michael Lübbert Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Michael R Irwin; Pamela Hinds; Andrew Miller; Ann Berger; Paul Jacobsen; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Bryce B Reeve; Karen Mustian; Ann O'Mara; Jin-Shei Lai; Michael Fisch; David Cella Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Angela M Stover; Bryce B Reeve; Barbara F Piper; Catherine M Alfano; Ashley Wilder Smith; Sandra A Mitchell; Leslie Bernstein; Kathy B Baumgartner; Anne McTiernan; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147