4.5 Article

Comparison between fatigue, sleep disturbance, and circadian rhythm in cancer inpatients and healthy volunteers: Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for cancer-related fatigue

Journal

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 245-254

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.03.014

Keywords

ambulatory monitoring; circadian rhythm; fatigue; motor activity; neoplasms; sleep disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether diagnostic criteria for cancer-related fatigue syndrome (CRFS) could, be rigorously applied to cancer inpatients, and to explore the relationship between subjective fatigue and objective measures of physical activity, sleep, and circadian rhythm. Female cancer patients (n = 25) and a comparison group of subjects without cancer (n = 25) were studied. Study participants completed a structured interview for CRTS and questionnaires relating to fatigue, psychological symptoms, and quality of life (QoL). Wrist actigraphs worn for 72 hours were used as an objective measure of activity, sleep, and circadian rhythm. Compared to controls, cancer patients were more fatigued, had worse sleep quality, more disrupted circadian rhythms, lower daytime activity levels, and worse QoL. After exclusion of subjects with probable mood disorders, the prevalence of CRFS was 56%. Fatigue severity among the cancer patients was significantly correlated with low QoL, depression, constipation, and decreased self-reported physical functioning. It can be concluded that the diagnostic criteria for CRFS can be applied to cancer inpatients but strict application requires a rigorous assessment of psychiatric comorbidity. Despite cancer inpatients having greater impairments of sleep and circadian rhythm, it was found that fatigue severity did not appear to be related to these impairments.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available