The definitions, assessment, and dimensions of cancer-related fatigue: A scoping review

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer 2024-07, Vol.32 (7), p.457, Article 457
• Main Authors: Keane, Kayla F., Wickstrom, Jordan, Livinski, Alicia A., Blumhorst, Catherine, Wang, Tzu-fang, Saligan, Leorey N.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer; Classification; Fatigue; Fatigue - diagnosis; Fatigue - etiology; Humans; Medical diagnosis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neoplasms - complications; Nursing; Nursing Research; Oncology; Pain Medicine; Quality of Life; Rehabilitation Medicine; Review; Side effects
• ISSN: 0941-4355; 1433-7339; 1433-7339
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08615-y

Purpose Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is challenging to diagnose and manage due to a lack of consensus on its definition and assessment. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize how CRF has been defined and assessed in adult patients with cancer worldwide. Methods Four databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycNet) were searched to identify eligible original research articles published in English over a 10-year span (2010–2020); CRF was required to be a primary outcome and described as a dimensional construct. Each review phase was piloted: title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Then, two independent reviewers participated in each review phase, and discrepancies were resolved by a third party. Results 2923 articles were screened, and 150 were included. Only 68% of articles provided a definition for CRF, of which 90% described CRF as a multidimensional construct, and 41% were identical to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network definition. Studies were primarily conducted in the United States (19%) and the majority employed longitudinal (67%), quantitative (93%), and observational (57%) study designs with sample sizes ≥ 100 people (57%). Participant age and race were often not reported (31% and 82%, respectively). The most common cancer diagnosis and treatment were breast cancer (79%) and chemotherapy (80%; n  = 86), respectively. CRF measures were predominantly multidimensional (97%, n  = 139), with the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) (26%) as the most common CRF measure and “Physical” (76%) as the most common CRF dimension. Conclusion This review confirms the need for a universally agreed-upon definition and standardized assessment battery for CRF.