Search

Objective: Fatigue remains one of the most common and distressing symptoms during treatment for advanced cancer. The TIRED trial demonstrated cognitive behavior therapy's (CBT) significant and clinically relevant effects to reduce fatigue among patients with advanced cancer, while graded exercise therapy (GET) did not prove beneficial. The present study aims to determine the mechanisms by which CBT and GET affect fatigue. Method: The TIRED trial randomized 134 patients with advanced cancer to CBT (n = 46), GET (n = 42), or usual care (n = 46). At 14 weeks, 126 evaluable patients provided fatigue data and of those 117 received ≥1 CBT or GET session or usual care. We tested a prespecified multiple mediation model with four potential mediators (physical activity, exercise capacity, self-efficacy, and fatigue catastrophizing) assessed at baseline and at 14 weeks. Post-hoc analyses also included perceived physical activity and emotional functioning as potential mediators. Results: A total of 82 of 117 patients completed all required measures. CBT reduced fatigue indirectly through its effect on self-efficacy, ab = −3.292; 97.5% bootstrap CI [−6.518 to −0.598]. CBT participants experienced an increase in fatigue self-efficacy, with greater self-efficacy associated with decreased fatigue severity. There was no evidence that changes in physical activity, exercise capacity, perceived physical activity, fatigue catastrophizing, or emotional functioning mediated CBT's or GET's effects on fatigue. Conclusions: The effect of CBT was attributable to changes in cognition, that is, increased self-efficacy led to reduced fatigue severity. No significant mediators for GET were found. The findings inform further refinement of interventions for fatigue in this seriously ill population. What is the public health significance of this article?: Fatigue is one of the most common and burdensome side effects for patients with advanced cancer and for patients with other serious illnesses. The effect of psychosocial treatment for fatigue among patients with advanced cancer can be attributed to changes in beliefs. Specifically, when helping patients with advanced cancer reduce their fatigue, it is important to increase the belief in one's capabilities to carry out behaviors rather than improve actual physical condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Although fatigue is the most frequently occurring symptom in patients with cancer, hardly anything is known about fatigue of their informal caregivers and the impact fatigue might have on perceived burden with providing care. We investigated the presence of fatigue in caregivers, its course and the relation of fatigue severity between caregivers and patients. Furthermore, we explored in caregivers whether fatigue severity was correlated to experienced burden. Material and methods. Informal caregivers and patients on cancer treatment in the palliative phase completed questionnaires at baseline and follow-up (6 months later). To measure fatigue severity, both groups completed the Checklist Individual Strength. Additionally, caregivers completed the Caregivers Strain Index to assess experienced burden with providing care. Descriptive analyses, paired t-tests, χ2-tests, Pearson's correlations and regression analysis were performed. Results. At baseline 111 couples (patients and caregivers) participated, at follow-up 75 couples. At both time points 23% of caregivers were severely fatigued. There was no significant correlation between patients and caregivers on fatigue. Higher fatigue in both patients and caregivers was correlated with higher burden in caregivers and over 30% of burden could be explained by fatigue. Conclusion. Almost a quarter of caregivers of patients on active palliative treatment were severely fatigued, which figure remained stable over time. Fatigue in both patients and caregivers was related to caregivers' burden. This observation should be taken into account with the growing demand on caregivers and the increase in cancer treatment options in the palliative setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Neuropathic pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer, which needs a more specific algorithm than nociceptive pain or neuropathic pain from other origin. Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) can be helpful in optimizing the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. Methods In this study, 9 national CPGs in Europe on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year, and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. Results Nine CPGs including recommendations on neuropathic pain could be selected and were assessed. In total, they used 149 references of which 72 (48%) were about cancer conditions, 39 (26%) about neuropathic pain, and only 3 about neuropathic pain in patients with cancer (2%). Only 28 (19%) references were shared between 2 or more guidelines. There was only one shared reference specifically related to cancer neuropathic pain. Recommendations and their evidence grading strongly differ between CPGs. Conclusion This work demonstrates an important heterogeneity between European recommendations on diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main weaknesses are the low level of evidence and the absence of specific data focusing on neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. We recommend that physicians dealing with neuropathic pain in patients with cancer should be specially trained, that a specific methodology to develop CPGs should followed, and that specific research should be developed on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 19% and 39% of patients with cancer pain suffer from neuropathic pain. Its diagnosis and treatment is still challenging. Yet, national clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) have been developed in several European countries to assist practitioners in managing these patients safely and legally. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the development and reporting of these CPGs. Methods In collaboration with the European Federation of IASP Chapters, a European inventory of CPGs was conducted. Inclusion criteria were at least one paragraph dedicated to the treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument, 2 appraisers independently assessed the quality of the development process of the included CPGs in 6 quality domains. Besides, CPGs developed by governmental organization were compared with those developed by professional societies using t-tests. Results Mean scores of the domains 'scope and purpose' (80%) and 'clarity of presentation' (61%) were satisfactory, 'stakeholder involvement' (58%), 'rigor of development' (57%), and 'editorial independence' (53%) were acceptable, and 'applicability' was insufficient (39%). Governmental guidelines had higher quality scores than professional society guidelines for domain 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' ( P < 0.01). Conclusions The quality of the development process of the 9 included CPGs varied widely. CPGs should be developed within a structured guideline program, including methodological support. As developing a CPG is expensive and time-consuming, we recommend more international cooperation to increase quality and lower the development costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews the use of lowered consciousness in patients to alleviate the pain and distress of cancer. The study aims to explore the ethical and clinical guidelines in lowering consciousness or palliative sedation of cancer patients. Cases and articles about palliative sedation from January 1998 to September 2008 were investigated. It notes that palliative sedation can be used to relieve the pain in cancer patients as differentiated from euthanasia which is lowering consciousness until death.

The article focuses on the fatigue which is a prevalent and inconvenient symptom for patients with advanced cancer. Topics discussed include need for interventional studies like randomized controlled trials for the management of fatigue in advanced cancer patients, professional gatekeeping as a barrier in identification of advanced cancer patients and need for patient participation in order to get information about studies for fatigue and quality of life.

Objective: The Pictorial Representation of Self and Illness Measure (PRISM) measures in a simple, graphic way the burden of suffering due to illness. The question addressed in this study is whether the PRISM is a valid instrument to measure suffering in cancer survivors experiencing severe fatigue. Method: Quantitative and qualitative data of a previous randomized controlled trial demonstrating the efficacy of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) especially designed for postcancer fatigue was used to assess convergent validity and sensitivity to change in a sample of 83 cancer survivors. Measures: The PRISM, yielding self-illness separation (SIS-fatigue = suffering due to fatigue; SIS-cancer = suffering due to cancer), fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength; CIS-fatigue), functional impairment, psychological well-being, quality of life, and coping with the experience of cancer (Impact of Event Scale; IES). Results: Moderate significant correlations were found with the PRISM and the above mentioned measures. On the basis of SIS scores, the sample was divided into two separate groups: cancer survivors who suffered more because of fatigue and cancer survivors who suffered more because they had cancer in the past. The two groups had different scores on CIS-fatigue and IES, in line with that aspect that caused them the most suffering. The qualitative data confirmed this finding. Participants in the CBT condition demonstrated a significant difference between SIS-fatigue at baseline versus 6 months later compared with those in the waiting list condition. No change of SIS-cancer was found. Conclusion: The PRISM seems to be a valuable tool in fatigue research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]