Hanne Bødtcher1, Pernille Envold Bidstrup1, Ingelise Andersen2, Jane Christensen3, Birgitte Goldschmidt Mertz4, Christoffer Johansen1, Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton5. 1. Survivorship Unit, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Social Medicine, Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Statistics, Bioinformatics and Registry, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Breast Surgery Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Survivorship Unit, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. sanne@cancer.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify distinct groups of fatigue trajectories among women with breast cancer and to evaluate whether age, anxiety symptoms, physical activity, and type of treatment were associated with belonging to the most adverse fatigue group. METHODS: Women scheduled for breast cancer surgery at Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, were consecutively invited to participate in the study (n = 424), resulting in 290 women included in the analyses. Semiparametric group-based mixture modeling was used to identify distinct trajectories of fatigue assessed the week before surgery and 4 and 8 months later. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate differences in the distinct fatigue groups. RESULTS: Two distinct groups of fatigue trajectories were identified. One group (21 %) had a high mean level, while the second group (79 %) had a low mean level of fatigue throughout the study. In multivariate analyses, sedentary physical activity (OR 5.78; 95 % CI 1.41-23.75), low physical activity (OR 3.17; 95 % CI 1.15-8.74), and increasing anxiety symptoms (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.14-1.33) before surgery were significantly associated with being in the high-fatigue group. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that one-fifth of women with breast cancer experience continuously high fatigue up to 8 months after surgery and may have been more anxious and physically inactive. This knowledge is important in targeting interventions to women with fatigue throughout their treatment and who do not return to a low fatigue level with existing treatment, self-management, or support.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify distinct groups of fatigue trajectories among women with breast cancer and to evaluate whether age, anxiety symptoms, physical activity, and type of treatment were associated with belonging to the most adverse fatigue group. METHODS:Women scheduled for breast cancer surgery at Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, were consecutively invited to participate in the study (n = 424), resulting in 290 women included in the analyses. Semiparametric group-based mixture modeling was used to identify distinct trajectories of fatigue assessed the week before surgery and 4 and 8 months later. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate differences in the distinct fatigue groups. RESULTS: Two distinct groups of fatigue trajectories were identified. One group (21 %) had a high mean level, while the second group (79 %) had a low mean level of fatigue throughout the study. In multivariate analyses, sedentary physical activity (OR 5.78; 95 % CI 1.41-23.75), low physical activity (OR 3.17; 95 % CI 1.15-8.74), and increasing anxiety symptoms (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.14-1.33) before surgery were significantly associated with being in the high-fatigue group. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that one-fifth of women with breast cancer experience continuously high fatigue up to 8 months after surgery and may have been more anxious and physically inactive. This knowledge is important in targeting interventions to women with fatigue throughout their treatment and who do not return to a low fatigue level with existing treatment, self-management, or support.
Authors: John D Merriman; Catherine Jansen; Theresa Koetters; Claudia West; Marylin Dodd; Kathryn Lee; Steven M Paul; Bradley E Aouizerat; Bruce A Cooper; Patrick S Swift; William Wara; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Martine M Goedendorp; Michael A Andrykowski; Kristine A Donovan; Heather S Jim; Kristin M Phillips; Brent J Small; Christine Laronga; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ana Claudia Garabeli Cavalli Kluthcovsky; Almir Antonio Urbanetz; Denise Siqueira de Carvalho; Eliane Mara Cesario Pereira Maluf; Geovana Cristina Schlickmann Sylvestre; Sergio Bruno Bonatto Hatschbach Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Helen J Michielsen; Alida F W Van der Steeg; Jan A Roukema; Jolanda De Vries Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-02-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fay Wright; Laura B Dunn; Steven M Paul; Yvette P Conley; Jon D Levine; Marilyn J Hammer; Bruce A Cooper; Christine Miaskowski; Kord M Kober Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2019 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.592
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: Kord M Kober; Betty Smoot; Steven M Paul; Bruce A Cooper; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 3.612
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: 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