Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors

Background

Fatigue is a highly prevalent and disabling symptom in cancer survivors. Although many measures have been developed to assess survivors’ fatigue, their ability to accurately capture change following intervention has rarely been assessed in post-treatment survivors. Ultra-brief fatigue measures are preferable in clinical practice but have limited evidence supporting their use with cancer survivors. We examined the psychometric properties of four Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) measures, including the new FSI-3, in cancer survivors. Examined properties included responsiveness to change and minimally important differences (MIDs).

Methods

We analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials with post-treatment cancer survivors (N = 328). Responsiveness to change was evaluated by comparing standardized response means for survivors who reported their fatigue as being better, the same, or worse at 2–3 months. Responsiveness to intervention was assessed via effect sizes, and MIDs were estimated by using several methods. We also computed area under the curve (AUC) values to assess FSI measures’ discriminative accuracy compared to an established cut-point.

Results

All FSI measures differentiated survivors who reported improvement at 2–3 months from those with stable fatigue, but did not uniformly differentiate worsening fatigue from stable fatigue. Measures showed similar levels of responsiveness to intervention, and MIDs ranged from 0.29 to 2.20 across FSI measures. AUC analyses supported the measures’ ability to detect significant fatigue.

Conclusions

Four FSI scales show similar responsiveness to change, and estimated MIDs can inform assessment of meaningful change in fatigue. The FSI-3 shows promise as an ultra-brief fatigue measure for survivors.

Effects of mindfulness-based interventions on fatigue in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in improving fatigue-related outcomes in adult cancer survivors. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases and reference lists of included studies. Separate random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for fatigue and vitality/vigor. Twenty-three studies reporting on 21 RCTs (N = 2239) met inclusion criteria. MBIs significantly reduced fatigue compared to controls at post-intervention (g = 0.60, 95 % CI [0.36, 0.83]) and first follow-up (g = 0.42, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.64]). Likewise, MBIs significantly improved vitality/vigor at post-intervention (g = 0.39, 95 % CI [0.25, 0.52]) and first follow-up (g = 0.35, 95 % CI [0.03, 0.67]). The evidence grade was low due to risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and publication bias among studies. MBIs show promise in improving fatigue and vitality/vigor in cancer survivors. More rigorous trials are needed to address current gaps in the evidence base.

Interventions for cancer-related fatigue: a scoping review

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is common and can be distressing for some survivors. There is increasing interest in measuring levels of CRF, highlighting its impact on quality of life. This review describes the nature and scope of evidence relating to interventions for CRF. Scoping review methodology was used to identify studies, extract data, collate and summarise results. Data were collated according to cancer tumour streams, stage of illness and the types of trial interventions. A total of 447 trials and 37 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Nine papers reported longitudinal results. Populations studied were predominantly of mixed cancer diagnoses and breast cancer. The most frequent interventions were exercise, pharmacological, psycho-education and mind-body interventions. Fatigue was identified as a primary outcome measure (OM) in 58% of studies, with 58 different fatigue measures reported. Emerging evidence exists for the effectiveness of fatigue interventions for some cancer types. More research on interventions with participants with the same cancer type and illness phase is needed. Measurement of severity and impact of CRF using fewer, robust OMs will permit comparisons across studies.