Fatigue prevalence and severity have been assessed in a variety of studies, yet, not in a standardized way, and predominantly in breast cancer patients. Systematic, comparative investigations across a broad range of cancer entities are lacking.
The FiX study systematically enrolled 2244 cancer patients across 15 entities approximately 2 years after diagnosis. Fatigue was assessed with the multidimensional EORTC QLQ-FA12 questionnaire. Physical, emotional, cognitive, and total fatigue were compared across entities and with normative values of the general population. Differences in patients' characteristics and cancer therapy between entities were taken into account using analyses of covariance models.
Across all entities, mean physical fatigue levels were significantly higher than age- and sex-matched means of the general population for all cancer entities (all Bonferroni-Holm adjusted P < .01). For most entities also emotional and cognitive fatigue levels were significantly higher than normative values. Age- and sex-standardized physical fatigue prevalence ranged from 31.8% among prostate to 51.7% among liver cancer patients. Differences between entities could not be fully explained by sex, age, BMI, or cancer therapy. Adjusted for these factors, mean physical fatigue was higher for stomach (P = .0004), lung (P = .034), kidney (P = .0011), pancreas (P = .081), and endometrium (P = .022) compared to breast cancer patients. Adjusted means of emotional fatigue were also lowest in breast cancer patients and significantly higher in stomach (P = .0047), bladder (P = .0036), and rectal (P = .0020) cancer patients.
Physical, emotional, and cognitive fatigue is prevalent in all 15 investigated cancer entities even 2 years after diagnosis. Fatigue in breast cancer patients, the so-far most studied group, is in the lowest range among all entities, suggesting that the extent of fatigue is still insufficiently determined. Entity-specific problems might need to be considered in the treatment of fatigue.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,011,908
of 32,444,503 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Medicine
#171
of 4,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,894
of 444,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Medicine
#8
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,444,503 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
