The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients

Mendoza, Tito R.; Wang, X. Shelley; Cleeland, Charles S.; Morrissey, Marilyn; Johnson, Beth; Wendt, Judy K.; Huber, Stephen L.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990301)85:5<1186::aid-cncr24>3.0.co;2-n

Cited by 1,582 publications

(1,340 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,262

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The boundary model used to define pain levels for the Brief Pain Inventory 10 and fatigue levels for the BFI 5 was used in this study. With this method, different fatigue cut-off points are defined, and each set of cut-off points is called a model.…”

Section: Fatigue Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of energy was associated with the presence of other significant symptoms, such as dyspnea, nausea, lack of appetite, pain, difficulty sleeping, and difficulty swallowing. 4 To better assess cancer-related fatigue, newly validated fatigue assessment tools, such as the Brief Fatigue Inventory 5 (BFI) and the Functional Assessment Therapy of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Fatigue subscale (FACT-F), 1 have been introduced. Mendoza et al 5 studied responses to the BFI in 309 patients with malignant disease.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 To better assess cancer-related fatigue, newly validated fatigue assessment tools, such as the Brief Fatigue Inventory 5 (BFI) and the Functional Assessment Therapy of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Fatigue subscale (FACT-F), 1 have been introduced. Mendoza et al 5 studied responses to the BFI in 309 patients with malignant disease. Those authors categorized BFI worst fatigue severity into mild, moderate, and worst fatigue groups based on correlation with BFI functional interference items, and they suggested that the cut-off point between moderate fatigue and severe fatigue should be between 6 and 7.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical relevance of fatigue levels in cancer patients at a Veterans Administration Medical Center

Hwang

Chang

Cogswell

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDThe correlation of fatigue levels with functional interference, symptom distress, and quality of life may help determine clinically significant fatigue levels.METHODSOne hundred eighty consecutive patients with cancer completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) General and Fatigue subscales (FACT‐G and FACT‐F, respectively), the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale‐Short Form (MSAS‐SF), the Depression Scale (Zung), and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was determined for each patient. Multivariate analyses of variance were performed to compare fatigue models with different cut‐off points to categorize fatigue levels. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to assess the association between fatigue severity and survival.RESULTSIncreased fatigue levels were associated with greater symptom distress and decreased quality of life. A model with usual fatigue cut‐off points of 0 (no fatigue), 1–2 (mild fatigue), 3–6 (moderate fatigue), and 7–10 (severe fatigue) was optimal in relation to functional interference items (Wilks λ, 0.36; F = 11.61; P < 0.0001), symptom distress scores (Wilks λ, 0.52; F = 10.41; P < 0.0001), and quality‐of‐life scores (Wilks λ, 0.50; F = 0.50; P < 0.0001). Fatigue severity predicted survival in univariate analysis (chi‐square test, 25.42; P < 0.0001). The KPS, stage of disease, and number of symptoms independently predicted survival in patients with fatigue.CONCLUSIONSClinically relevant fatigue levels are correlated with symptom and quality‐of‐life measurements. Patients with a usual fatigue severity > 3 or a worst fatigue severity > 4 on a 1–10 scale may require further assessment. Cancer 2002;94:2481–9. © 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10507

show abstract

Section: Fatigue Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical relevance of fatigue levels in cancer patients at a Veterans Administration Medical Center

Hwang

Chang

Cogswell

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The usual fatigue severity was chosen because, in our population, it demonstrated the highest correlation with BFI interference score, MSAS-SF symptom distress subscales, the Zung depression indicies, FACT-G QOL parameters, and the FACT-F. 11 The worst fatigue severity was used because worst fatigue was found informative in the original BFI validation literature. 5 Based on the visual association between fatigue severity and the six BFI interference items, the FACT-F subscale, the FACT-G QOL parameters, the MSAS-SF symptom distress subscales, and the Zung depression indicies (see Figs. 1, 2), we grouped usual fatigue severity into two models and worst fatigue severity into two models.…”

Section: Fatigue Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical relevance of fatigue levels in cancer patients at a Veterans Administration Medical Center

Hwang

Chang

Cogswell

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Secondary endpoints included RBC transfusion requirements, adverse events (AEs), and Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs). PROs were measured using several validated tools: the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) [18], Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) [19], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Anemia (FACT-An) [20], and Linear Analog Self Assessment (LASA) [21]. Adverse events were reported using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized comparison of once weekly epoetin alfa to extended schedule epoetin or darbepoetin in chemotherapy‐associated anemia

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents (ESAs) epoetin alfa (EA) and darbepoetin alfa (DA) increase hemoglobin (Hb) levels and reduce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements in patients with cancer chemotherapy‐associated anemia (CAA). Extended‐interval ESA dosing (administration less than once weekly) is common with DA, but previous studies suggested that EA might also be administered less often than weekly. In this multicenter prospective trial, 239 CAA patients with Hb <10.5 g/dL were randomized to receive EA 40,000 U subcutaneously once weekly (“40K” arm), EA 80,000 U every 3 weeks (“80K”), EA 120,000 U every 3 weeks (“120K” arm), or DA 500 mcg every 3 weeks (“DA”), for 15 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving Hb ≥ 11.5 g/dL or increment of Hb > 2.0 g/dL from baseline without transfusion. Secondary endpoints included transfusion requirements, adverse events (AEs), and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the proportion of patients achieving Hb response (68.9% for 40K, 61.7% for 80K, 65.5% for 120K, and 66.7% for DA; P > 0.41 for all comparisons) or requiring RBC transfusion, but the median Hb increment from baseline was higher in the 40K and DA arms compared to the two extended dosing EA arms, and Hb response was achieved soonest in the weekly EA arm. There were no differences in PROs or AEs. The FDA‐approved schedules tested—weekly EA 40,000 U, and every 3 week DA 500 mcg—are reasonable standards for CAA therapy. Am. J. Hematol. 90:877–881, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients

Cited by 1,582 publications

References 19 publications

Clinical relevance of fatigue levels in cancer patients at a Veterans Administration Medical Center

Clinical relevance of fatigue levels in cancer patients at a Veterans Administration Medical Center

Clinical relevance of fatigue levels in cancer patients at a Veterans Administration Medical Center

A randomized comparison of once weekly epoetin alfa to extended schedule epoetin or darbepoetin in chemotherapy‐associated anemia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About