4.6 Article

Prevalence and predictors of fatigue in glioblastoma: a prospective study

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 274-281

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nou127

Keywords

depression; fatigue; glioblastoma; sleepiness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The main goal of this study was to assess frequency, clinical correlates, and independent predictors of fatigue in a homogeneous cohort of well-defined glioblastoma patients at baseline prior to combined radio-chemotherapy. Methods. We prospectively included 65 glioblastoma patients at postsurgical baseline and assessed fatigue, sleepiness, mean bedtimes, mood disturbances, and clinical characteristics such as clinical performance status, presenting symptomatology, details on neurosurgical procedure, and tumor location and diameter as well as pharmacological treatment including antiepileptic drugs, antidepressants, and use of corticosteroids. Data on fatigue and sleepiness were measured with the Fatigue Severity Scale and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, respectively, and compared with 130 age-and sex-matched healthy controls. Results. We observed a significant correlation between fatigue and sleepiness scores in both patients (r = 0.26; P = .04) and controls (r = 0.36; P < . 001). Only fatigue appeared to be more common in glioblastoma patients than in healthy controls (48% vs 11%; P < .001) but not the frequency of sleepiness (22% vs 19%; P = .43). Female sex was associated with increased fatigue frequency among glioblastoma patients but not among control participants. Multiple linear regression analyses identified depression, left-sided tumor location, and female sex as strongest associates of baseline fatigue severity. Conclusions. Our findings indicate that glioblastoma patients are frequently affected by fatigue at baseline, suggesting that factors other than those related to radio-or chemotherapy have significant impact, particularly depression and tumor localization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available