Hello. Sign in to personalize your visit. New user? Register now.  
Journal of Palliative Medicine
Clinically Important Improvement in the Intensity of Fatigue in Patients with Advanced Cancer

To cite this article:
Shantan Reddy, Eduardo Bruera, Ellen Pace, Karen Zhang, Cielito C. Reyes-Gibby. Journal of Palliative Medicine. October 2007, 10(5): 1068-1075. doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0007.

Full Text: • PDF for printing (115.8 KB) • PDF w/ links (118.9 KB)


Shantan Reddy, M.D.
Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Eduardo Bruera, M.D.
Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ellen Pace, M.S.N., C.P.N., O.C.N., E.L.N.E.C.
Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Karen Zhang, M.S.
Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Cielito C. Reyes-Gibby, M.S.N., D.R.P.H.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common symptom experienced by patients with cancer. Clinically important improvement in the intensity of fatigue in palliative care patients has not been well established. We reviewed the data from 3 clinical trials of fatigue in 194 patients receiving palliative care treatment. Patients completed the Functional Assessment for Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at baseline and day 8 and their global perception of fatigue improvement (Global benefit score [GBS]: 1 = not beneficial, 7 = greatly important] during day 8. A GBS of 4 or more (moderate improvement, consistently beneficial) was considered a clinically significant improvement. Change scores in the ESAS and FACIT-F from baseline to day 8 were compared to the GBS greater than 4. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were also derived for ESAS and FACIT-F change scores for a GBS greater than 4, greater than 5, and greater than 6. Results showed the mean patient age was 56 (±12) years, and 37% were men. A reduction of approximately 10 points in FACIT-F (sensitivity = 73%, specificity = 78%, area under the curve = 0.82) and 4 points in ESAS fatigue (sensitivity = 66%, specificity = 72%, area under the curve = 0.78) score was best able to predict a clinically important improvement (GBS ≥ 4). We were able to characterize the relationship between FACIT-F and ESAS scores and patients' global perception of improvement but further studies are needed to validate our findings.

Free first page

This paper was cited by:

The HPNA Research Agenda for 2009-2012
Margaret L. Campbell, Mary Beth Happ, Todd Hultman, Karin T. Kirchhoff, Margaret M. Mahon, M. Murray Mayo, Susan McMillan, Barbara Raudonis
Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing. Feb 2009, Vol. 11, No. 1: 10-18
CrossRef
Health-related quality of life measures in routine clinical care: Can FACT-Fatigue help to assess the management of fatigue in cancer patients?
Maria-Jose Santana, Heather-Jane Au, Melina Dharma-Wardene, Joanne D. Hewitt, David Dupere, John Hanson, Sunita Ghosh, David Feeny
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Feb 2009, Vol. 25, No. 01: 90
CrossRef
All articles
Previous Next