PURPOSE: Several guidelines on the treatment of cancer-related fatigue recommend optimizing treatment of accompanying symptoms. However, evidence for this recommendation from randomized clinical trials is lacking. We investigated whether monitoring and protocolized treatment of physical symptoms alleviates fatigue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 152 fatigued patients with advanced cancer were randomly assigned to protocolized patient-tailored treatment (PPT) of symptoms or care as usual. The PPT group had four appointments with a nurse who assessed nine symptoms on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients received a nonpharmacologic intervention for symptoms with a score ≥ 1 and a medical intervention for symptoms with a score ≥ 4. Fatigue dimensions, fatigue NRS score, interference of fatigue with daily life, symptom burden, quality of life, anxiety, and depression were measured at baseline and after 1, 2, and 3 months. Differences between the groups over time were assessed by using mixed modeling. RESULTS:Seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to each study arm. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, 57% were female, and 65% were givenpalliative chemotherapy. We found significant improvements over time in favor of PPT for the primary outcome general fatigue (P = .01), with significant group differences at month 1 (effect size, 0.26; P = .007) and month 2 (effect size, 0.35; P = .005). Improvements in favor of PPT were also found for the following secondary outcomes: fatigue dimensions "reduced activity" and "reduced motivation," fatigue NRS, symptom burden, interference of fatigue with daily life, and anxiety (all P ≤ .03). CONCLUSION: In fatigued patients with advanced cancer, nurse-led monitoring and protocolized treatment of physical symptoms is effective in alleviating fatigue.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Several guidelines on the treatment of cancer-related fatigue recommend optimizing treatment of accompanying symptoms. However, evidence for this recommendation from randomized clinical trials is lacking. We investigated whether monitoring and protocolized treatment of physical symptoms alleviates fatigue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 152 fatigued patients with advanced cancer were randomly assigned to protocolized patient-tailored treatment (PPT) of symptoms or care as usual. The PPT group had four appointments with a nurse who assessed nine symptoms on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients received a nonpharmacologic intervention for symptoms with a score ≥ 1 and a medical intervention for symptoms with a score ≥ 4. Fatigue dimensions, fatigue NRS score, interference of fatigue with daily life, symptom burden, quality of life, anxiety, and depression were measured at baseline and after 1, 2, and 3 months. Differences between the groups over time were assessed by using mixed modeling. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to each study arm. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, 57% were female, and 65% were given palliative chemotherapy. We found significant improvements over time in favor of PPT for the primary outcome general fatigue (P = .01), with significant group differences at month 1 (effect size, 0.26; P = .007) and month 2 (effect size, 0.35; P = .005). Improvements in favor of PPT were also found for the following secondary outcomes: fatigue dimensions "reduced activity" and "reduced motivation," fatigue NRS, symptom burden, interference of fatigue with daily life, and anxiety (all P ≤ .03). CONCLUSION: In fatigued patients with advanced cancer, nurse-led monitoring and protocolized treatment of physical symptoms is effective in alleviating fatigue.
Authors: Anna Spathis; Sara Booth; Sarah Grove; Helen Hatcher; Isla Kuhn; Stephen Barclay Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Adam E Singer; Joy R Goebel; Yan S Kim; Sydney M Dy; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Megan Clifford; Elizabeth Dzeng; Claire E O'Hanlon; Aneesa Motala; Anne M Walling; Jaime Goldberg; Daniella Meeker; Claudia Ochotorena; Roberta Shanman; Mike Cui; Karl A Lorenz Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jennifer L Steel; David A Geller; Kevin H Kim; Lisa H Butterfield; Michael Spring; Jonathan Grady; Weiing Sun; Wallis Marsh; Michael Antoni; Mary Amanda Dew; Vicki Helgeson; Richard Schulz; Allan Tsung Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christina K Ullrich; Veronica Dussel; Liliana Orellana; Tammy I Kang; Abby R Rosenberg; Chris Feudtner; Joanne Wolfe Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Skye T Dong; Phyllis N Butow; Allison Tong; Meera Agar; Frances Boyle; Benjamin C Forster; Martin Stockler; Melanie R Lovell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Julie R Brahmer; Hamzah Abu-Sbeih; Paolo Antonio Ascierto; Jill Brufsky; Laura C Cappelli; Frank B Cortazar; David E Gerber; Lamya Hamad; Eric Hansen; Douglas B Johnson; Mario E Lacouture; Gregory A Masters; Jarushka Naidoo; Michele Nanni; Miguel-Angel Perales; Igor Puzanov; Bianca D Santomasso; Satish P Shanbhag; Rajeev Sharma; Dimitra Skondra; Jeffrey A Sosman; Michelle Turner; Marc S Ernstoff Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 13.751