CONTEXT: Development of pharmacological and behavioral interventions for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) requires adequate measures of this symptom. A guidance document from the Food and Drug Administration offers criteria for the formulation and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials to support drug or device labeling claims. METHODS: An independent working group, ASCPRO (Assessing Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes), has begun developing recommendations for the measurement of symptoms in oncology clinical trials. The recommendations of the Fatigue Task Force for measurement of CRF are presented here. RESULTS: There was consensus that CRF could be measured effectively in clinical trials as the sensation of fatigue or tiredness, impact of fatigue/tiredness on usual functioning, or as both sensation and impact. The ASCPRO Fatigue Task Force constructed a definition and conceptual model to guide the measurement of CRF. ASCPRO recommendations do not endorse a specific fatigue measure but clarify how to evaluate and implement fatigue assessments in clinical studies. The selection of a CRF measure should be tailored to the goals of the research. Measurement issues related to various research environments were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There exist in the literature good measures of CRF for clinical trials, with strong evidence of clarity and comprehensibility to patients, content and construct validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change in conditions in which one would expect them to change (assay sensitivity), and sufficient evidence to establish guides for interpreting changes in scores. Direction for future research is discussed. Copyright 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. All rights reserved.
CONTEXT: Development of pharmacological and behavioral interventions for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) requires adequate measures of this symptom. A guidance document from the Food and Drug Administration offers criteria for the formulation and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials to support drug or device labeling claims. METHODS: An independent working group, ASCPRO (Assessing Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes), has begun developing recommendations for the measurement of symptoms in oncology clinical trials. The recommendations of the Fatigue Task Force for measurement of CRF are presented here. RESULTS: There was consensus that CRF could be measured effectively in clinical trials as the sensation of fatigue or tiredness, impact of fatigue/tiredness on usual functioning, or as both sensation and impact. The ASCPROFatigue Task Force constructed a definition and conceptual model to guide the measurement of CRF. ASCPRO recommendations do not endorse a specific fatigue measure but clarify how to evaluate and implement fatigue assessments in clinical studies. The selection of a CRF measure should be tailored to the goals of the research. Measurement issues related to various research environments were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There exist in the literature good measures of CRF for clinical trials, with strong evidence of clarity and comprehensibility to patients, content and construct validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change in conditions in which one would expect them to change (assay sensitivity), and sufficient evidence to establish guides for interpreting changes in scores. Direction for future research is discussed. Copyright 2010 U.S. CancerPain Relief Committee. All rights reserved.
Authors: T Okuyama; T Akechi; A Kugaya; H Okamura; Y Shima; M Maruguchi; T Hosaka; Y Uchitomi Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: G A Curt; W Breitbart; D Cella; J E Groopman; S J Horning; L M Itri; D H Johnson; C Miaskowski; S L Scherr; R K Portenoy; N J Vogelzang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2000
Authors: P M Meek; L M Nail; A Barsevick; A L Schwartz; S Stephen; K Whitmer; S L Beck; L S Jones; B L Walker Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2000 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Guy H Montgomery; Daniel David; Maria Kangas; Sheryl Green; Madalina Sucala; Dana H Bovbjerg; Michael N Hallquist; Julie B Schnur Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xin Shelley Wang; Fengmin Zhao; Michael J Fisch; Ann M O'Mara; David Cella; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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