Stéphanie Smet1, Richard Pötter2, Christine Haie-Meder3, Jacob C Lindegaard4, Ina Schulz-Juergenliemk5, Umesh Mahantshetty6, Barbara Segedin7, Kjersti Bruheim8, Peter Hoskin9, Bhavana Rai10, Fleur Huang11, Rachel Cooper12, Erik van Limbergen13, Kari Tanderup4, Kathrin Kirchheiner14. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, Gustave-Roussy, France. 4. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Utrecht University, Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, India. 7. Department of Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia. 8. Department of Oncology, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Norway. 9. Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom. 10. Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 11. Department of Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 12. Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, United Kingdom. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: kathrin.kirchheiner@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pattern of manifestation of fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes within the prospective, observational, multi-center EMBRACE study. METHODS: Morbidity was prospectively assessed according to CTCAE v.3 and patient-reported outcome with EORTC QLQ-C30/CX24 at baseline and regular follow-up. Analyses of crude incidence, prevalence rates and actuarial estimates were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1176 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 27 months. At baseline, CTCAE G1/G2 prevalence rates for fatigue were 29%/6.2%, for insomnia 18%/3.1% and for hot flashes 7.9%/1.6% with respective 3-year prevalence rates of 29%/6.8%, 17%/4.4% and 19%/5.9%. Similar patterns of manifestation were seen in patient-reported EORTC outcomes. The 3-year actuarial estimates for G ≥ 3 CTCAE fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes were 5.5%, 4.7% and 1.9%. Younger age was associated with significantly higher risk for fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes. CONCLUSION: Fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes occurred mainly in the mild to moderate range. Fatigue and insomnia were already present before treatment and showed minor fluctuations or recovery during follow-up, whereas hot flashes showed a considerable increase after treatment. More research is needed to evaluate contributing risk factors in order to define intervention strategies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pattern of manifestation of fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes within the prospective, observational, multi-center EMBRACE study. METHODS: Morbidity was prospectively assessed according to CTCAE v.3 and patient-reported outcome with EORTC QLQ-C30/CX24 at baseline and regular follow-up. Analyses of crude incidence, prevalence rates and actuarial estimates were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1176 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 27 months. At baseline, CTCAE G1/G2 prevalence rates for fatigue were 29%/6.2%, for insomnia 18%/3.1% and for hot flashes 7.9%/1.6% with respective 3-year prevalence rates of 29%/6.8%, 17%/4.4% and 19%/5.9%. Similar patterns of manifestation were seen in patient-reported EORTC outcomes. The 3-year actuarial estimates for G ≥ 3 CTCAE fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes were 5.5%, 4.7% and 1.9%. Younger age was associated with significantly higher risk for fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes. CONCLUSION:Fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes occurred mainly in the mild to moderate range. Fatigue and insomnia were already present before treatment and showed minor fluctuations or recovery during follow-up, whereas hot flashes showed a considerable increase after treatment. More research is needed to evaluate contributing risk factors in order to define intervention strategies.
Authors: L M Wiltink; M King; F Müller; M S Sousa; M Tang; A Pendlebury; J Pittman; N Roberts; L Mileshkin; R Mercieca-Bebber; M-A Tait; R Campbell; C Rutherford Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alexander J Lin; Elizabeth Kidd; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Sasa Mutic; Premal H Thaker; Leslie S Massad; Matthew A Powell; David G Mutch; Stephanie Markovina; Julie Schwarz; Perry W Grigsby Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nina Boje Kibsgaard Jensen; Marianne Sanggaard Assenholt; Lars Ulrik Fokdal; Anne Vestergaard; Annette Schouboe; Eva Bruun Kjaersgaard; Annette Boejen; Lars Nyvang; Jacob Christian Lindegaard; Kari Tanderup Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-20
Authors: Amelia Barcellini; Mattia Dominoni; Francesca Dal Mas; Helena Biancuzzi; Sara Carla Venturini; Barbara Gardella; Ester Orlandi; Kari Bø Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-02-03