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.

A quantitative comparison of arm activity between survivors of breast cancer and healthy controls: use of accelerometry.

PURPOSE: Survivors of breast cancer (BC) on the non-dominant side have more persistent deficits than those with cancer on the dominant limb. What is not known is whether those with BC use their involved upper limbs more, less, or at the same level as women without BC. Accelerometer use offers a quantifiable method to measure activity levels of upper limbs. The purpose of this study was to quantify the activity levels of the non-dominant involved limb among survivors of BC and compare these values to their dominant limb, as well as the non-dominant limb of a control group. METHODS: Participants (n = 30) were women with unilateral BC on the non-dominant limb, diagnosed between 6 and 24 months prior to data collection, and a matched healthy group of women as controls. Participants completed the following questionnaires: medical and demographics, Brief Fatigue Inventory, Brief Pain Inventory - Short form, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), and Beck Depression Index. Participants wore an accelerometer on each wrist during waking hours for 7 days. Arm activity was measured using vector magnitude activity counts extracted from the accelerometers. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in total vector magnitude activity counts between groups for either limb. Within group dominant to non-dominant comparison was significantly different (p ≤ 0.001). No significant difference in pain was present but significant differences for fatigue (p = 0.002), depression (p = 0.004), and DASH scores (p = 0.035) were present. CONCLUSIONS: Women with non-dominant BC use their involved limb similar to healthy controls but less than their dominant limb.

Comparison of Upper Extremity Function in Women With and Women Without a History of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatments often result in upper extremity functional limitations in both the short and long term. Current evidence makes comparisons against a baseline or contralateral limb, but does not consider changes in function associated with aging. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare upper extremity function between women treated for breast cancer more than 12 months in the past and women without cancer. DESIGN: This was an observational cross-sectional study. METHODS: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and had a mean post-surgical treatment time of 51 months (range = 12-336 months) were compared with women who did not have breast cancer (CTRL group). Self-reported upper extremity function using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and shoulder range of motion, strength, and muscular endurance were measured. Participants were divided into 3 groups: breast cancer involving the nondominant limb (BC-ND), breast cancer involving the dominant limb (BC-DOM), and CTRL. RESULTS: A total of 59 women in the CTRL group, 23 women in the BC-ND group, and 28 women in the BC-DOM group completed measures. Mean DASH scores in women with breast cancer were higher than those of women in the CTRL group, regardless of the limb on which cancer occurred (Cohen d = 1.13; 95% CI = 2.20 to 16.21) Range of motion for the BC-ND group was significantly less for flexion (Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI = -13.08 to -0.11) and external rotation (Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI = -18.62 to -1.98) compared with the CTRL group. Strength in the BC-ND group was 23% to 25% lower in the CTRL group for external (Cohen's d = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.12) and internal rotation (Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.13). Endurance was not significantly different in the 3 groups. LIMITATIONS: Some participants had rehabilitation, which may have skewed results. The range of post-surgical treatment times was broad, making it difficult to determine when function returned. Muscular endurance measures demonstrated a ceiling effect and large variance, limiting the ability to distinguish differences among participants. These results may not be generalizable to the subset of women who were treated with lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, or chest wall radiation alone or who underwent a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSION: In the long term, women with breast cancer have lower self-reported shoulder function than women without breast cancer. Motion and strength are lower among women who have experienced cancer on the nondominant limb.

Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008-2018) With a Focus on Physical Function: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated over the last decade. However, closer examination of the published literature reveals that the majority of this work has focused on psychological interventions and cognitive and behavioral therapies. Recent initiatives have aggregated expert consensus around research priorities, highlighting a dearth in research regarding measurement of and interventions for physical function. Increasingly loud calls for the need to address the myriad of physical functional impairments that develop in people living with and beyond cancer have been published in the literature. A detailed survey of the landscape of published research has not been reported to our knowledge. PURPOSE: This scoping review systematically identified literature published between 2008 and 2018 related to the screening, assessment, and interventions associated with physical function in people living with and beyond cancer. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to September 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Study selection included articles of all levels of evidence on any disease stage and population. A total of 11,483 articles were screened for eligibility, 2507 full-text articles were reviewed, and 1055 articles were selected for final inclusion and extraction. DATA EXTRACTION: Seven reviewers recorded type of cancer, disease stage, age of participants, phase of treatment, time since diagnosis, application to physical function, study design, impairments related to physical function, and measurement instruments used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Approximately one-third of the articles included patients with various cancer diagnoses (30.3%), whereas the rest focused on a single cancer, most commonly breast (24.8%). Most articles (77%) measured physical function following the completion of active cancer treatment with 64% representing the assessment domain. The most commonly used measures of physical function were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Health Survey Questionnaire (29%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (21.5%). LIMITATIONS: Studies not written in English, study protocols, conference abstracts, and unpublished data were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This review elucidated significant inconsistencies in the literature regarding language used to define physical function, measurement tools used to characterize function, and the use of those tools across the cancer treatment and survivorship trajectory. The findings suggested that physical function in cancer research is predominantly measured using general health-related quality-of-life tools rather than more precise functional assessment tools. Interdisciplinary and clinician-researcher collaborative efforts should be directed toward a unified definition and assessment of physical function.

Effects of yoga on arm volume among women with breast cancer related lymphedema: A pilot study.

Lymphedema affects 3-58% of survivors of breast cancer and can result in upper extremity impairments. Exercise can be beneficial in managing lymphedema. Yoga practice has been minimally studied for its effects on breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL). The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of yoga on arm volume, quality of life (QOL), self-reported arm function, and hand grip strength in women with BCRL. Six women with BCRL participated in modified Hatha yoga 3×/week for 8 weeks. Compression sleeves were worn during yoga sessions. Arm volume, QOL, self-reported arm function, and hand grip strength were measured at baseline, half-way, and at the conclusion of yoga practice. Arm volume significantly decreased from baseline (2423.3 ml ± 597.2) to final measures (2370.8 ml ± 577.2) (p = .02). No significant changes in QOL (p = .12), self-reported arm function (p = .34), or hand grip strength (p = .26) were found. Yoga may be beneficial in the management of lymphedema.