Screening and Assessment of Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Providers.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common side effect of cancer treatment. Regular surveillance is recommended, but few clinical practice guidelines transparently assess study bias, quality, and clinical utility in deriving recommendations of screening and assessment methods. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide recommendations for the screening and assessment of CRF for health care professions treating individuals with cancer. Following best practices for development of a CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Statement and Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) Guidelines Trust Scorecard, this CPG included a systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of included evidence, and stakeholder input from diverse health care fields to derive the final CPG. Ten screening and 15 assessment tools supported by 114 articles were reviewed. One screen (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 Core Questionnaire) and 3 assessments (Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Fatigue-SF) received an A recommendation ("should be used in clinical practice"), and 1 screen and 5 assessments received a B recommendation ("may be used in clinical practice"). Health care providers have choice in determining appropriate screening and assessment tools to be used across the survivorship care continuum. The large number of tools available to screen for or assess CRF may result in a lack of comprehensive research evidence, leaving gaps in the body of evidence for measurement tools. More research into the responsiveness of these tools is needed in order to adopt their use as outcome measures. IMPACT: Health care providers should screen for and assess CRF using one of the tools recommended by this CPG.

Intra- and Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of a New Tool for Assessment of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop and assess intra- and interrater reliability and validity of a clinical evaluation tool for breast cancer-related lymphedema, for use in the context of outcome evaluation in clinical trials. DESIGN: Blinded repeated measures observational study. SETTING: Outpatient research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Breast cancer survivors with and without lymphedema (N=71). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The assessment of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema of the Upper Extremity (CLUE) standardized clinical evaluation tool. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability for the CLUE tool was ICC: 0.88 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.71-0.96). Interrater reliability for the CLUE tool was ICC: 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95). Concurrent validity of the CLUE score (Pearson r) was 0.79 with perometric interlimb difference and 0.53 with the Norman lymphedema overall score. CONCLUSIONS: The CLUE tool shows excellent inter- and intrarater reliability. The overall CLUE score for the upper extremity also shows moderately strong concurrent validity with objective and subjective measures. This newly developed clinical, physical assessment of upper extremity lymphedema provides standardization and a single score that accounts for multiple constructs. Next steps include evaluation of sensitivity to change, which would establish usefulness to evaluate intervention efficacy.