Comparison of the effectiveness of two tools in screening cancer-related fatigue in lung cancer patients with chemotherapy
10.3760/cma.j.cn115682-20230601-02197
- VernacularTitle:2种筛查工具在肺癌化疗患者癌症相关性疲乏筛查中的效果比较
- Author:
Lin SUN
1
;
Wenjie XIA
;
Qianqian LAN
;
Jing XU
;
Dan LIU
Author Information
1. 江苏省肿瘤医院肿瘤内科，南京 210009
- Keywords:
Lung neoplasms;
Chemotherapy;
Cancer-related fatigue;
Screening tools;
Nursing assessment
- From:
Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
2024;30(2):171-176
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the effectiveness of the Cancer Fatigue Scale (CFS) and the Revised Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS-R) in screening cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in lung cancer patients with chemotherapy.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional study. From June 2022 to March 2023, convenience sampling was used to select 162 lung cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy in the Oncology Department of Jiangsu Cancer Hospital as the study subject. CFS and PFS-R were used for CRF screening, using the diagnostic criteria proposed in the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cancer-related Fatigue in China as the gold standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic ( AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index of the two screening tools were compared. Results:The incidence of CRF in lung cancer chemotherapy patients was 61.1% (99/162). According to the presence of CRF, the patients were divided into CRF group ( n=99) and non-CRF group ( n=63). The CFS score and PFS-R score of patients in the CRF group were higher than those in the non-CRF group, and the differences were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The AUC of CFS was 0.840 with an optimal cutoff value of 2.470, and the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index were 0.758, 0.873, and 0.631, respectively. The AUC of PFS-R was 0.918 with an optimal cutoff value of 4.500, and the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index were 0.899, 0.937, and 0.836, respectively. The AUC of PFS-R was higher than that of CFS, and the difference was statistically significant ( Z=2.232, P<0.05) . Conclusions:Compared with CFS, PFS-R has a better evaluation effect and is more suitable as a screening tool for CRF in lung cancer patients with chemotherapy.
