| Literature DB >> 27504161 |
Bahram Mofid1, Hossein Rezaeizadeh2, Abdulkarim Termos3, Afshin Rakhsha1, Ahmad Rezazadeh Mafi4, Taiebeh Taheripanah5, Mehran Mirabzadeh Ardakani6, Seyed Mohammad Esmaeil Taghavi7, Seyyed Alireza Moravveji8, Amir Shahram Yousefi Kashi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is experienced by 50% to 90% of cancer patients and can severely affect their quality of life and functional capacity. Several randomized trials have recommended various ways to alleviate the symptoms of CRF with or without recourse to medications.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; Fatigue; Royal jelly
Year: 2016 PMID: 27504161 PMCID: PMC4965196 DOI: 10.19082/2475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Electron Physician ISSN: 2008-5842
Composition of Processed Honey and Royal Jelly
| Acidity | 17.7 meq/kg |
|---|---|
| Total ash content | 0.06% |
| Lipids | 0.04% |
| Proteins | 0.62% |
| Sugars | 76.5% |
| Sucrose | 4.6% |
| Glucose | 23.63% |
| Fructose | 47.98% |
Patient and Treatment Characteristics of the Patients in the Two Groups
| Characteristics | Study | Control | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Age (years) | 55.42 | 54.27 | 54.84 | |
| Gender | Male | 9 (34.6%) | 12 (46.2%) | 21 (40.4%) |
| Female | 17 (65.4%) | 14 (53.8%) | 31 (59.6%) | |
| Total | 26 (100%) | 26 (100%) | 52 (100%) | |
| Type of Cancer | Breast | 14 (53.8%) | 13 (50.0%) | 27 (51.9%) |
| Stomach | 2 (7.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.8%) | |
| Esophagus | 3 (11.5%) | 1 (3.8%) | 4 (7.7%) | |
| Colon | 0 (0%) | 3 (11.5%) | 3 (5.8%) | |
| Rectum | 1 (3.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.9%) | |
| Prostate | 6 (23.1%) | 9 (34.6%) | 15 (28.8%) | |
| Total | 26 (100.0%) | 26 (100.0%) | 52 (100.0%) | |
| Type of Treatment | Hormone therapy | 12 (46.2%) | 14 (53.8%) | 26 (50.0%) |
| Chemotherapy | 2 (7.7%) | 4 (15.4%) | 6 (11.5%) | |
| Chemoradiation | 5 (19.2%) | 1 (3.8%) | 6 (11.5%) | |
| Radiotherapy | 7 (26.9%) | 7 (26.9%) | 14 (26.9%) | |
| Total | 26 (100.0%) | 26 (100.0%) | 52 (100.0%) | |
Comparison of the Fatigue and Performance Status at the Beginning (Base) After the Second and Fourth Weeks of Study
| Characteristics | Study | Control | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| FSS | FSS base | 8.08 ± 0.628 | 7.96 ± 0.720 | 0.541 |
| FSS 2nd week | 5.31 ± 1.258 | 7.46 ± 1.067 | <0.001 | |
| FSS 4th week | 2.77 ± 1.583 | 6.58 ± 1.724 | <0.001 | |
| ECOG PS | ECOG base | 6.00 ± 0.693 | 6.00 ± 0.566 | 1 |
| ECOG 2nd week | 3.69 ± 0.884 | 5.50 ± 0.906 | <0.001 | |
| ECOG 4th week | 1.96 ± 0.999 | 4.88 ± 1.306 | <0.001 | |
| VAFS | VAFS base | 2.69 ± 0.471 | 2.69 ± 0.549 | 1 |
| VAFS 2nd week | 1.69 ± 0.618 | 2.46 ± 0.508 | <0.001 | |
| VAFS 4th week | 0.65 ± 0.846 | 2.15 ± 0.784 | <0.001 | |
SD: standard deviation;
FSS: fatigue severity scale;
ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score;
VAFS: visual analogue fatigue scale.