PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to characterize changes in daily fatigue in women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. We examined whether there are subgroups of patients with distinct fatigue trajectories and explored potential psychosocial and biomedical predictors of these subgroups. METHODS: Participants were 77 women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with AC-T (2-week cycle) and TC or TCH (3-week cycle) regimens. They completed 28 daily ratings online using an adapted version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) fatigue instrument. RESULTS: Both regimens followed an "inverted-U-shaped" fatigue pattern over approximately 2 weeks. Growth mixture modeling identified three patient subgroups with distinct trajectories. Fatigue scores in the "low fatigue" group (23 %) increased following the infusion and quickly abated. The "transient fatigue" (27 %) group had a very pronounced increase. Patients in the "high fatigue" (50 %) group reported consistently elevated fatigue with a relatively small increase. Demographic and medical variables were not associated with fatigue trajectory. Patients in the "high fatigue" group reported significantly poorer physical, emotional, and social functioning, poorer general health, and more depressed mood than patients in the "low fatigue" group. The "transient fatigue" group reported significantly better physical and social functioning than the "high fatigue" group, but emotional distress and depression similar to the "high fatigue" group. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of patient subgroups with distinct fatigue trajectories during chemotherapy is an essential step for developing preventative strategies and tailored interventions. Our results suggest that different trajectories are associated with patients' psychosocial and general health.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to characterize changes in daily fatigue in women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. We examined whether there are subgroups of patients with distinct fatigue trajectories and explored potential psychosocial and biomedical predictors of these subgroups. METHODS:Participants were 77 women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with AC-T (2-week cycle) and TC or TCH (3-week cycle) regimens. They completed 28 daily ratings online using an adapted version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) fatigue instrument. RESULTS: Both regimens followed an "inverted-U-shaped" fatigue pattern over approximately 2 weeks. Growth mixture modeling identified three patient subgroups with distinct trajectories. Fatigue scores in the "low fatigue" group (23 %) increased following the infusion and quickly abated. The "transient fatigue" (27 %) group had a very pronounced increase. Patients in the "high fatigue" (50 %) group reported consistently elevated fatigue with a relatively small increase. Demographic and medical variables were not associated with fatigue trajectory. Patients in the "high fatigue" group reported significantly poorer physical, emotional, and social functioning, poorer general health, and more depressed mood than patients in the "low fatigue" group. The "transient fatigue" group reported significantly better physical and social functioning than the "high fatigue" group, but emotional distress and depression similar to the "high fatigue" group. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of patient subgroups with distinct fatigue trajectories during chemotherapy is an essential step for developing preventative strategies and tailored interventions. Our results suggest that different trajectories are associated with patients' psychosocial and general health.
Authors: Karon F Cook; Alyssa M Bamer; Dagmar Amtmann; Ivan R Molton; Mark P Jensen Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 3.966
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: Rutger H T Koornstra; Marlies Peters; Stacey Donofrio; Ben van den Borne; Floris A de Jong Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Christopher Christodoulou; Stefan Schneider; Doerte U Junghaenel; Joan E Broderick; Arthur A Stone Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kirsten A Nyrop; Allison M Deal; Shlomit S Shachar; Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Seul Ki Choi; Jordan T Lee; William A Wood; Carey K Anders; Lisa A Carey; Elizabeth C Dees; Trevor A Jolly; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Gretchen G Kimmick; Meghan S Karuturi; Raquel E Reinbolt; JoEllen C Speca; Hyman B Muss Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-12-14
Authors: Julienne E Bower; Joshua Wiley; Laura Petersen; Michael R Irwin; Steve W Cole; Patricia A Ganz Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Thi Xuan Mai Tran; Jungeun Park; Joonki Lee; Yuh-Seog Jung; Yoonjung Chang; Hyunsoon Cho Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Julienne E Bower; Patricia A Ganz; Michael R Irwin; Steve W Cole; Deborah Garet; Laura Petersen; Arash Asher; Sara A Hurvitz; Catherine M Crespi Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yishu Qi; Lu Lin; Bei Dong; Ewen Xu; Zhaokang Bao; Jie Qi; Xiaokang Chen; Li Tian Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Ines Vaz-Luis; Antonio Di Meglio; Julie Havas; Mayssam El-Mouhebb; Pietro Lapidari; Daniele Presti; Davide Soldato; Barbara Pistilli; Agnes Dumas; Gwenn Menvielle; Cecile Charles; Sibille Everhard; Anne-Laure Martin; Paul H Cottu; Florence Lerebours; Charles Coutant; Sarah Dauchy; Suzette Delaloge; Nancy U Lin; Patricia A Ganz; Ann H Partridge; Fabrice André; Stefan Michiels Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 50.717