Cancer-related fatigue and associated disability in post-treatment cancer survivors
- 1.4k Downloads
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most prevalent and distressing symptom among cancer patients and survivors. However, research on its prevalence and related disability in the post-treatment survivorship period remains limited. We sought to describe the occurrence of CRF within three time points in the post-treatment survivorship trajectory.
A self-administered mail-based questionnaire which included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 was sent to three cohorts of disease-free breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors (6–18 months; 2–3 years; and 5–6 years post-treatment). Clinical information was extracted from chart review. Frequencies of significant fatigue by diagnostic group and time cohorts were studied and compared. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine the associations between CRF and demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables.
One thousand two hundred ninety-four questionnaire packages were returned (63 % response rate). A total of 29 % (95 % CI [27 % to 32 %]) of the sample reported significant fatigue (FACT-F ≤34), and this was associated with much higher levels of disability (p < 0.0001). Breast (40 % [35 % to 44 %]) and colorectal (33 % [27 % to 38 %]) cancer survivors had significantly higher rates of fatigue compared with the prostate group (17 % [14 % to 21 %]) (p < 0.0001). Fatigue levels did not differ between the three time cohorts. The main factors associated with CRF included physical symptom burden, depression, and co-morbidity (AUC, 0.919 [0.903 to 0.936]).
Clinically relevant levels of CRF are present in approximately 1/3 of cancer survivors up to 6 years post-treatment, and this is associated with high levels of disability.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Clinicians need to be aware of the chronicity of CRF and assess for it routinely in medical practice. While there is no gold standard treatment, non-pharmacological interventions with established efficacy can reduce its severity and possibly minimize its disabling impact on patient functioning. Attention must be paid to the co-occurrence and need for possible treatment of depression and other co-occurring physical symptoms as contributing factors.
KeywordsCancer-related fatigue Post-treatment survivorship Disability
The work was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Drs. Jones, Howell and Jiang had full access to the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the analyses.
Study concept design: Jones, Howell, Olson, Catton, Catton, Fleshner, Krzyzanowska, McCready, Wong
Acquisition of the data: Jones, Howell, Catton, Catton, Fleshner, Krzyzanowska, McCready, Wong
Analyses and Interpretation of the Data: Jones, Howell, Jiang, Catton, Krzyzanowska, Wong
Drafting of the manuscript: Jones, Howell
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Jones, Howell, Jiang, Olson, Catton, Catton, Fleshner, Krzyzanowska, McCready, Wong
Obtained Funding: Jones, Howell, Olson, Catton, Catton, Fleshner, Krzyzanowska, McCready, Wong
Study Supervision: Jones, Howell
Conflict of interest
Role of the sponsors
The funding source played no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analyses, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation or approval of the manuscript.
- 1.Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers CD, Parkin D. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC Cancer. GLOBO CAN 2008. 2010.Google Scholar
- 2.Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Feuer EJ, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2005. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2007.Google Scholar
- 3.Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2012.Google Scholar
- 7.Temple L, Wang E, McLeod R. Preventive health care: follow-up after breast cancer. Can Med Assoc J. 1999;18(4):73–90.Google Scholar
- 9.Ristovski-Slijepcevic S. Environmental scan of cancer survivorship in Canada: conceptualization, practice and research. Vancouver, BC: BC Cancer Agency; 2008. http://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/Survivorship_Svetlana_Ristovski-Slijepcevic.pdf
- 14.Mock V, Atkinson A, Barsevick A, Cella D, Cimprich B, Cleeland C, et al. NCCN Practice guidelines for cancer-related fatigue. Oncology (Williston Park). 2008;14(11A):151–61.Google Scholar
- 17.Miaskowski C, Portenoy RK. Update on the assessment and management of cancer-related fatigue. Principles and Practice of Supportive Oncology Updates. 1998;1:1–10.Google Scholar
- 47.Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1978.Google Scholar
- 48.Dillman DA. Mail and Internet surveys—the tailored design method. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1999.Google Scholar
- 49.Dillman DA. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method 2007 update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2007.Google Scholar
- 57.Federici S, Meloni F. WHODAS II: Disability self-evaluation in the ICF conceptual frame. In: Stone JH, Blouin M, editors. International encyclopedia of rehabilitation; 2010. http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/299/.
- 63.Eaton WW, Muntaner C, Smith C, Tien A, Ybarra M. Center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: review and revision (CESD and CESD-R) In: Maruish ME, editor. The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcomes Assessment, Vol. 3. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc; 2004.Google Scholar
- 64.Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene PR, Vagg PR, Jacobs AG. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc; 1983.Google Scholar
- 69.Thong MS, Mols F, Wang XS, Lemmens VE, Smilde TJ, van de Poll-Franse LV. Quantifying fatigue in (long-term) colorectal cancer survivors: a study from the population-based patient reported outcomes following initial treatment and long term evaluation of survivorship registry. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(8):1957–66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 72.Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009.Google Scholar
- 78.Brown LF, Rand KL, Bigatti SM, Stewart JC, Theobald DE, Wu J, et al. Longitudinal relationships between fatigue and depression in cancer patients with depression and/or pain. Health Psychol. 2013;32(12):1199–208.Google Scholar
- 84.Jacobsen PB. Assessment of fatigue in cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;(32):93-7.Google Scholar
- 88.Morrow GR, Hickok JT, Roscoe JA, Raubertas RF, Andrews PL, Flynn PJ, et al. Differential effects of paroxetine on fatigue and depression: a randomized, double-blind trial from the University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(24):4635–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 90.Howell D, Keller-Olaman S, Oliver TK, Hack T, Broadfield L, Biggs K, et al. A pan-Canadian practice guideline: screening, assessment and care of cancer-related fatigue in adults with cancer. Toronto: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Cancer Journey Advisory Group) Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology; 2011; Available from: http://capo.ca/Fatigue_Guideline.pdf.
- 91.Network NCC. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cancer related fatigue. Version 1. 2013. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2013; Available from: http://www.nccn.org.
- 92.Network NCC. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Survivorship (version 1.2013). 2013.Google Scholar
- 93.Bower JE, Bak K, Berger A, Breitbart W, Escalante CP, Ganz PA, et al. Screening, assessment, and management of fatigue in adult survivors of cancer: an American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline adaptation. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(17):1840–50.Google Scholar