Sarah R Brand1, Christine Chordas2, Cori Liptak3, Peter Manley2, Christopher Recklitis2. 1. Department of Psychosocial Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. SarahR_Brand@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Psychosocial Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most commonly reported and distressing symptoms experienced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. While national guidelines have recommended screening for CRF during routine follow-up appointments, the validity of using a one-item screening measure for fatigue has not been examined with AYA brain tumor survivors. The purpose of this study is to assess how well a single-item fatigue screen could identify clinically significant fatigue in childhood brain tumor survivors. METHODS: A single-item measure, the Fatigue Thermometer (FT), was compared with a more in-depth measure, the Multidimensional Fatigue Scale (MFS), in a cohort of AYA pediatric brain tumor survivors. One hundred and forty-two survivors (aged 12-32 years) completed the two instruments. RESULTS: Forty-two survivors were identified on the MFS as having clinically significant fatigue, but the FT was not found to be an accurate tool for identifying these cases. Although receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of FT ratings against the MFS criterion indicated good concordance between measures, no cutoff score on the FT was identified that resulted in acceptable sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that a single-item screening measure for fatigue is not able to reliably identify clinically significant fatigue in AYA brain tumor survivors.
PURPOSE:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most commonly reported and distressing symptoms experienced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. While national guidelines have recommended screening for CRF during routine follow-up appointments, the validity of using a one-item screening measure for fatigue has not been examined with AYA brain tumor survivors. The purpose of this study is to assess how well a single-item fatigue screen could identify clinically significant fatigue in childhood brain tumor survivors. METHODS: A single-item measure, the Fatigue Thermometer (FT), was compared with a more in-depth measure, the Multidimensional Fatigue Scale (MFS), in a cohort of AYA pediatric brain tumor survivors. One hundred and forty-two survivors (aged 12-32 years) completed the two instruments. RESULTS: Forty-two survivors were identified on the MFS as having clinically significant fatigue, but the FT was not found to be an accurate tool for identifying these cases. Although receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of FT ratings against the MFS criterion indicated good concordance between measures, no cutoff score on the FT was identified that resulted in acceptable sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that a single-item screening measure for fatigue is not able to reliably identify clinically significant fatigue in AYA brain tumor survivors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Brain tumors; Late effects; Outcomes research; Psychosocial; Quality of life; Support care
Authors: P S Hinds; M Hockenberry-Eaton; E Gilger; N Kline; C Burleson; S Bottomley; A Quargnenti Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; William F Pirl; Christopher J Recklitis; Barbara Cashavelly; Thomas J Lynch Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Femke K Aarsen; Philippe F Paquier; Roel E Reddingius; Isabelle C Streng; Willem-Frans M Arts; Marjon Evera-Preesman; Coriene E Catsman-Berrevoets Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sharon L Bober; Eric S Zhou; Bing Chen; Peter E Manley; Lisa B Kenney; Christopher J Recklitis Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Emma J Verwaaijen; Coriene E Catsman-Berrevoets; Heleen Maurice-Stam; Arianne B Dessens; Richelle Waslander; Tabitha P L van den Adel; Saskia M F Pluijm; Roel E Reddingius; Erna Michiels; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Annelies Hartman Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-11-03
Authors: Shosha H M Peersmann; Martha A Grootenhuis; Annemieke van Straten; Wim J E Tissing; Floor Abbink; Andrica C H de Vries; Jacqueline Loonen; Helena J H van der Pal; Gertjan J L Kaspers; Raphaële R L van Litsenburg Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Salome Christen; Katharina Roser; Renée L Mulder; Anica Ilic; Hanne C Lie; Jacqueline J Loonen; Anneli V Mellblom; Leontien C M Kremer; Melissa M Hudson; Louis S Constine; Roderick Skinner; Katrin Scheinemann; Jordan Gilleland Marchak; Gisela Michel Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Adriaan Penson; Iris Walraven; Ewald Bronkhorst; Martha A Grootenhuis; Wim J E Tissing; Helena J H van der Pal; Andrica C H de Vries; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Sebastian Neggers; Birgitta A B Versluys; Marloes Louwerens; Saskia M F Pluijm; Nicole Blijlevens; Margriet van der Heiden-van der Loo; Leontien C M Kremer; Eline van Dulmen-den Broeder; Hans Knoop; Jacqueline Loonen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.452