4.0 Article

Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Terminal Cancer Correlates With Inflammation, Poor Quality of Life and Sleep, and Anxiety/Depression

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 10, Pages 942-947

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1049909115603055

Keywords

fatigue; neoplasm; palliative care; inflammation; quality of life; depression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess which laboratory and clinical factors are associated with fatigue in patients with terminal cancer. Methods: We evaluated 51 patients with advanced incurable solid tumors using the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale for fatigue; the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI-BR) for sleep quality; the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for anxiety and depression; the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 3.0 (QLQ C-30); and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) for quality of life. We also analyzed several inflammatory markers and the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS). Results: We observed severe fatigue in 19 (38%) patients (FACIT-F score >36). There was a significant correlation between fatigue as evaluated by the CFQ and quality of sleep and between the CFQ mental fatigue subscale scores and TNF- level. When fatigue was evaluated using the FACIT-F scale, we observed a significant association between fatigue and anxiety/depression, quality of sleep, mGPS, and hemoglobin levels. Fatigue measured both with the CFQ and FACIT-F scale correlated with poor quality of life according to the EORTC QLQ C-30. Conclusion: In patients with advanced cancer, fatigue is a common symptom associated with the presence of inflammation, poor quality of sleep, depression/anxiety, and poor quality of life.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available