CONTEXT: There has been some suggestion that the fatigue experienced by older cancer patients is more severe than that of younger cohorts; however, there is little empirical evidence to support this claim. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to determine the differential impact of age and cancer diagnosis on ratings of fatigue using a validated self-report instrument. METHODS: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscale consists of 13 items measuring fatigue experience and its impact on daily life, with scores ranging from 0 (severe fatigue) to 52 (no fatigue). Fatigue data were available from the U.S. general population (n=1075; 51.3% female, 45.9+/-16.5 years) and a sample of mixed-diagnosis cancer patients (n=738; 64.3% female, 58.7+/-13.6 years). General population participants were recruited using an Internet-based survey panel; patients with cancer were recruited from Chicago-area oncology clinics. RESULTS: On average, the cancer patient group reported more severe fatigue than the general population group (36.9 vs. 46.6; F[1,1797]=271.95, P<0.001). There was evidence for increased fatigue with age (F[6,719]=2.56, P<0.02) among patients with cancer, but not in the general population (P=0.06). Furthermore, the group x age interaction was not significant (P=0.44). Hemoglobin (Hgb) was treated as a covariate for 430 patients with available data; there was no main effect for age in this analysis. CONCLUSION: Older adults, whether they had a cancer diagnosis, reported more fatigue than younger adults. These differences may be explained, in part, by Hgb level. Future research would be helpful to explore longitudinal changes in fatigue in the general population and guide fatigue management for the older cancer patient. Copyright (c) 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
CONTEXT: There has been some suggestion that the fatigue experienced by older cancerpatients is more severe than that of younger cohorts; however, there is little empirical evidence to support this claim. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to determine the differential impact of age and cancer diagnosis on ratings of fatigue using a validated self-report instrument. METHODS: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscale consists of 13 items measuring fatigue experience and its impact on daily life, with scores ranging from 0 (severe fatigue) to 52 (no fatigue). Fatigue data were available from the U.S. general population (n=1075; 51.3% female, 45.9+/-16.5 years) and a sample of mixed-diagnosis cancerpatients (n=738; 64.3% female, 58.7+/-13.6 years). General population participants were recruited using an Internet-based survey panel; patients with cancer were recruited from Chicago-area oncology clinics. RESULTS: On average, the cancerpatient group reported more severe fatigue than the general population group (36.9 vs. 46.6; F[1,1797]=271.95, P<0.001). There was evidence for increased fatigue with age (F[6,719]=2.56, P<0.02) among patients with cancer, but not in the general population (P=0.06). Furthermore, the group x age interaction was not significant (P=0.44). Hemoglobin (Hgb) was treated as a covariate for 430 patients with available data; there was no main effect for age in this analysis. CONCLUSION: Older adults, whether they had a cancer diagnosis, reported more fatigue than younger adults. These differences may be explained, in part, by Hgb level. Future research would be helpful to explore longitudinal changes in fatigue in the general population and guide fatigue management for the older cancerpatient. Copyright (c) 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: David Cella; Martin J Zagari; Christina Vandoros; Dennis D Gagnon; Hans-Jürgen Hurtz; Johan W R Nortier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leorey N Saligan; Karin Olson; Kristin Filler; David Larkin; Fiona Cramp; Sriram Yennurajalingam; Yennu Sriram; Carmen P Escalante; Auro del Giglio; Kord M Kober; Jayesh Kamath; Oxana Palesh; Karen Mustian Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anita R Peoples; Joseph A Roscoe; Robert C Block; Charles E Heckler; Julie L Ryan; Karen M Mustian; Michelle C Janelsins; Luke J Peppone; Dennis F Moore; Charlotte Coles; Karen L Hoelzer; Gary R Morrow; Ann M Dozier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lindsey E Bischel; Christine Ritchie; Kord M Kober; Steven M Paul; Bruce A Cooper; Lee-May Chen; Jon D Levine; Marilyn Hammer; Fay Wright; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Lando Janssen; Nicole M A Blijlevens; Meggie M C M Drissen; Esmée A Bakker; Malou A H Nuijten; Jeroen J W M Janssen; Silvie Timmers; Maria T E Hopman Journal: Haematologica Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Yi Long Toh; Chia Jie Tan; Angie Hui Ling Yeo; Maung Shwe; Han Kiat Ho; Yan Xiang Gan; Koon Mian Foo; Pat Chu; Karin Olson; Alexandre Chan Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 5.310
Authors: Fay Wright; Bruce A Cooper; Yvette P Conley; Marilyn J Hammer; Lee-May Chen; Steven M Paul; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski; Kord M Kober Journal: Fatigue Date: 2017-05-18