Skye Tian Dong1, Phyllis N Butow2, Daniel S J Costa2, Melanie R Lovell3, Meera Agar4. 1. Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: skye.dong@sydney.edu.au. 2. Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. HammondCare, The University of Sydney Medical School, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Department of Palliative Care, Braeside Hospital, HammondCare, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Advanced cancer patients typically experience multiple symptoms, which may influence patient outcomes synergistically. The composition of these symptom clusters (SCs) differs depending on various clinical variables and the timing and method of their assessment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the composition, longitudinal stability, and consistency across methodologies of common SCs, as well as their common predictors and outcomes. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted using variants of symptom clusters, cancer, and palliative care. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles were identified and reviewed. Many SCs were identified, with four common groupings being anxiety-depression, nausea-vomiting, nausea-appetite loss, and fatigue-dyspnea-drowsiness-pain. SCs in most cases were not stable longitudinally. The various statistical methods used (most commonly principal component analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis) tended to reveal different SCs. Different measurement tools were used in different studies, each containing a different array of symptoms. The predictors and outcomes of SCs were also inconsistent across studies. No studies of patient experiences of SCs were identified. CONCLUSION: Although the articles reviewed revealed four groups of symptoms that tended to cluster, there is limited consistency in the way in which SCs and variables associated with them are identified. This is largely due to a lack of agreement about a robust, clinically relevant definition of SCs. Future research should focus on patients' subjective experience of SCs to inform a clinically relevant definition of SCs and how they are managed over time.
CONTEXT: Advanced cancerpatients typically experience multiple symptoms, which may influence patient outcomes synergistically. The composition of these symptom clusters (SCs) differs depending on various clinical variables and the timing and method of their assessment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the composition, longitudinal stability, and consistency across methodologies of common SCs, as well as their common predictors and outcomes. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted using variants of symptom clusters, cancer, and palliative care. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles were identified and reviewed. Many SCs were identified, with four common groupings being anxiety-depression, nausea-vomiting, nausea-appetite loss, and fatigue-dyspnea-drowsiness-pain. SCs in most cases were not stable longitudinally. The various statistical methods used (most commonly principal component analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis) tended to reveal different SCs. Different measurement tools were used in different studies, each containing a different array of symptoms. The predictors and outcomes of SCs were also inconsistent across studies. No studies of patient experiences of SCs were identified. CONCLUSION: Although the articles reviewed revealed four groups of symptoms that tended to cluster, there is limited consistency in the way in which SCs and variables associated with them are identified. This is largely due to a lack of agreement about a robust, clinically relevant definition of SCs. Future research should focus on patients' subjective experience of SCs to inform a clinically relevant definition of SCs and how they are managed over time.
Authors: Xiaobo Zhong; Emerson A Lim; Dawn L Hershman; Carol M Moinpour; Joseph Unger; Shing M Lee Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gayle G Page; Elizabeth J Corwin; Susan G Dorsey; Nancy S Redeker; Donna Jo McCloskey; Joan K Austin; Barbara J Guthrie; Shirley M Moore; Debra Barton; Miyong T Kim; Sharron L Docherty; Drenna Waldrop-Valverde; Donald E Bailey; Rachel F Schiffman; Angela Starkweather; Teresa M Ward; Suzanne Bakken; Kathleen T Hickey; Cynthia L Renn; Patricia Grady Journal: J Nurs Scholarsh Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 3.176
Authors: Melisa L Wong; Bruce A Cooper; Steven M Paul; Jon D Levine; Yvette P Conley; Fay Wright; Marilyn Hammer; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Annabelle Ballesta; Pasquale F Innominato; Robert Dallmann; David A Rand; Francis A Lévi Journal: Pharmacol Rev Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 25.468