Gustavo Schvartsman1, Minjeong Park2, Diane D Liu2, Sriram Yennu3, Eduardo Bruera3, David Hui4. 1. Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Division of Quantitative Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: dhui@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Assessment of cancer-related fatigue is currently based on patient-reported outcomes. We asked whether objective assessments, such as muscle strength and nutritional markers, can be used as surrogate measures of cancer-related fatigue. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association among three fatigue scales, muscle strength, and nutritional markers in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: In this prospective study, we enrolled hospitalized cancer patients who had been seen in palliative care consultation at MD Anderson Cancer Center. We assessed fatigue using three fatigue scales-the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)-and determined their association with objective assessments, including handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, lean body mass, phase angle, and albumin. Spearman's correlation test was used to assess associations. RESULTS: Among 222 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 59% were women. The median overall survival was 106 days. The total BFI score had weak association with handgrip strength (ρ = -0.18, P = 0.007) and no association with the remaining objective measures. ESAS fatigue and EORTC fatigue showed similar findings. Total BFI had moderate-to-strong association with ESAS (ρ = 0.54, P < 0.0001) and EORTC (ρ = 0.60, P < 0.0001) fatigue. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that subjective assessment of fatigue based on patient-reported outcomes correlates only weakly with muscle strength and nutritional markers; thus, patient-reported outcomes remain the gold standard for fatigue assessment.
CONTEXT: Assessment of cancer-related fatigue is currently based on patient-reported outcomes. We asked whether objective assessments, such as muscle strength and nutritional markers, can be used as surrogate measures of cancer-related fatigue. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association among three fatigue scales, muscle strength, and nutritional markers in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: In this prospective study, we enrolled hospitalized cancerpatients who had been seen in palliative care consultation at MD Anderson Cancer Center. We assessed fatigue using three fatigue scales-the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)-and determined their association with objective assessments, including handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, lean body mass, phase angle, and albumin. Spearman's correlation test was used to assess associations. RESULTS: Among 222 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 59% were women. The median overall survival was 106 days. The total BFI score had weak association with handgrip strength (ρ = -0.18, P = 0.007) and no association with the remaining objective measures. ESAS fatigue and EORTCfatigue showed similar findings. Total BFI had moderate-to-strong association with ESAS (ρ = 0.54, P < 0.0001) and EORTC (ρ = 0.60, P < 0.0001) fatigue. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that subjective assessment of fatigue based on patient-reported outcomes correlates only weakly with muscle strength and nutritional markers; thus, patient-reported outcomes remain the gold standard for fatigue assessment.
Authors: P S Hinds; A Quargnenti; A J Bush; C Pratt; D Fairclough; G Rissmiller; D Betcher; G S Gilchrist Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Young Ho Yun; Xin Shelley Wang; Jung Suk Lee; Ju Won Roh; Chang Geol Lee; Won Sup Lee; Keun Seok Lee; Soo-Mee Bang; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: T Veni; S Boyas; B Beaune; H Bourgeois; A Rahmani; S Landry; A Bochereau; S Durand; B Morel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Filipe Dinato de Lima; Martim Bottaro; Ritielli de Oliveira Valeriano; Lorena Cruz; Claudio L Battaglini; Carlos Alexandre Vieira; Ricardo Jacó de Oliveira Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: B Cameron; K Webber; H Li; B K Bennett; F Boyle; P de Souza; N Wilcken; J Lynch; M Friedlander; D Goldstein; A R Lloyd Journal: Brain Behav Immun Health Date: 2020-12-08
Authors: Sara Mijwel; Malin Backman; Kate A Bolam; Emil Olofsson; Jessica Norrbom; Jonas Bergh; Carl Johan Sundberg; Yvonne Wengström; Helene Rundqvist Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 4.872