Jennifer M Jones1, Karin Olson2, Pamela Catton3, Charles N Catton4, Neil E Fleshner5, Monika K Krzyzanowska6, David R McCready5, Rebecca K S Wong4, Haiyan Jiang7, Doris Howell3. 1. Cancer Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Munk Building B PMB 148, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. jennifer.jones@uhn.ca. 2. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 3. Cancer Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Munk Building B PMB 148, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most prevalent and distressing symptom among cancer patients and survivors. However, research on its prevalence and related disability in the post-treatment survivorship period remains limited. We sought to describe the occurrence of CRF within three time points in the post-treatment survivorship trajectory. METHODS: A self-administered mail-based questionnaire which included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 was sent to three cohorts of disease-free breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors (6-18 months; 2-3 years; and 5-6 years post-treatment). Clinical information was extracted from chart review. Frequencies of significant fatigue by diagnostic group and time cohorts were studied and compared. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine the associations between CRF and demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-four questionnaire packages were returned (63 % response rate). A total of 29 % (95 % CI [27 % to 32 %]) of the sample reported significant fatigue (FACT-F ≤34), and this was associated with much higher levels of disability (p < 0.0001). Breast (40 % [35 % to 44 %]) and colorectal (33 % [27 % to 38 %]) cancer survivors had significantly higher rates of fatigue compared with the prostate group (17 % [14 % to 21 %]) (p < 0.0001). Fatigue levels did not differ between the three time cohorts. The main factors associated with CRF included physical symptom burden, depression, and co-morbidity (AUC, 0.919 [0.903 to 0.936]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant levels of CRF are present in approximately 1/3 of cancer survivors up to 6 years post-treatment, and this is associated with high levels of disability. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Clinicians need to be aware of the chronicity of CRF and assess for it routinely in medical practice. While there is no gold standard treatment, non-pharmacological interventions with established efficacy can reduce its severity and possibly minimize its disabling impact on patient functioning. Attention must be paid to the co-occurrence and need for possible treatment of depression and other co-occurring physical symptoms as contributing factors.
PURPOSE:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most prevalent and distressing symptom among cancerpatients and survivors. However, research on its prevalence and related disability in the post-treatment survivorship period remains limited. We sought to describe the occurrence of CRF within three time points in the post-treatment survivorship trajectory. METHODS: A self-administered mail-based questionnaire which included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 was sent to three cohorts of disease-free breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors (6-18 months; 2-3 years; and 5-6 years post-treatment). Clinical information was extracted from chart review. Frequencies of significant fatigue by diagnostic group and time cohorts were studied and compared. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine the associations between CRF and demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-four questionnaire packages were returned (63 % response rate). A total of 29 % (95 % CI [27 % to 32 %]) of the sample reported significant fatigue (FACT-F ≤34), and this was associated with much higher levels of disability (p < 0.0001). Breast (40 % [35 % to 44 %]) and colorectal (33 % [27 % to 38 %]) cancer survivors had significantly higher rates of fatigue compared with the prostate group (17 % [14 % to 21 %]) (p < 0.0001). Fatigue levels did not differ between the three time cohorts. The main factors associated with CRF included physical symptom burden, depression, and co-morbidity (AUC, 0.919 [0.903 to 0.936]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant levels of CRF are present in approximately 1/3 of cancer survivors up to 6 years post-treatment, and this is associated with high levels of disability. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Clinicians need to be aware of the chronicity of CRF and assess for it routinely in medical practice. While there is no gold standard treatment, non-pharmacological interventions with established efficacy can reduce its severity and possibly minimize its disabling impact on patient functioning. Attention must be paid to the co-occurrence and need for possible treatment of depression and other co-occurring physical symptoms as contributing factors.
Authors: Michael A Andrykowski; John E Schmidt; John M Salsman; Abbie O Beacham; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V Mock; A Atkinson; A Barsevick; D Cella; B Cimprich; C Cleeland; J Donnelly; M A Eisenberger; C Escalante; P Hinds; P B Jacobsen; P Kaldor; S J Knight; A Peterman; B F Piper; H Rugo; P Sabbatini; C Stahl Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Martine M Goedendorp; Marieke F M Gielissen; Constans A H H V M Verhagen; Gijs Bleijenberg Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Elizabeth L Addington; Lorenzo Cohen; Stephanie J Sohl; Marieke Van Puymbroeck; Natalia K Albinati; S Nicole Culos-Reed Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rachel Meadows; Timethia Bonner; Megha Dobhal; Sujana Borra; Jordan A Killion; Raheem Paxton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Andy S K Cheng; Yingchun Zeng; Xiangyu Liu; Shaxin Liu; Stella W C Cheng; Cindy T T Kwok; Raymond C K Chung; Jianfei Xie; Michael Feuerstein Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Elizabeth M Jaffee; Chi Van Dang; David B Agus; Brian M Alexander; Kenneth C Anderson; Alan Ashworth; Anna D Barker; Roshan Bastani; Sangeeta Bhatia; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Otis Brawley; Atul J Butte; Daniel G Coit; Nancy E Davidson; Mark Davis; Ronald A DePinho; Robert B Diasio; Giulio Draetta; A Lindsay Frazier; Andrew Futreal; Sam S Gambhir; Patricia A Ganz; Levi Garraway; Stanton Gerson; Sumit Gupta; James Heath; Ruth I Hoffman; Cliff Hudis; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Ramy Ibrahim; Hossein Jadvar; Brian Kavanagh; Rick Kittles; Quynh-Thu Le; Scott M Lippman; David Mankoff; Elaine R Mardis; Deborah K Mayer; Kelly McMasters; Neal J Meropol; Beverly Mitchell; Peter Naredi; Dean Ornish; Timothy M Pawlik; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Martin G Pomper; Derek Raghavan; Christine Ritchie; Sally W Schwarz; Richard Sullivan; Richard Wahl; Jedd D Wolchok; Sandra L Wong; Alfred Yung Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M Jennifer Cheng; B Douglas Smith; Christopher S Hourigan; Ivana Gojo; Keith W Pratz; Amanda L Blackford; Ambereen K Mehta; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Maike G Sweegers; Laurien M Buffart; Wouke M van Veldhuizen; Edwin Geleijn; Henk M W Verheul; Johannes Brug; Mai J M Chinapaw; Teatske M Altenburg Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-11-13