Purpose A variety of assessment instruments have been created to identify cancer symptoms. We reviewed systematically cancer symptom assessment instruments published in English. Methods A systematic search of the MEDLINE database, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EMBASE was performed. Non–peer-reviewed articles were identified through BIOSIS. Articles were accessed through the related article links in PubMed and references were searched by hand. Studies were included if the instrument had symptom assessment as the primary outcome. Quality-of-life instruments were excluded. Results We identified 21 instruments; some had undergone modification or validation. An additional 28 studies examined symptom prevalence and interrelations; many involved symptom checklists. Studies varied in design, patient characteristics, symptoms, and outcome. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in design, study outcomes, and validation. Seventy-six articles and two conference abstracts (derived from MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, BIOSIS, related articles link in PubMed, and search by hand) met inclusion/exclusion criteria. The electronic search (without related links) yielded only 26% of those articles and conference abstracts that met inclusion criteria. Searches by hand of related articles identified 59% of studies. Conclusion Twenty-one instruments were identified as appropriate for clinical use. The instruments vary in symptom content and extent of psychometric validation. Both comprehensive and shorter instruments have been developed, and some instruments are intended for specific symptom assessment or symptoms related to treatment. There is no ideal instrument, and the wide variety of instruments reflects the different settings for symptom assessment. Additional research is necessary.

Several important cancer SC have been identified. Nausea-vomiting, anxiety-depression, and dyspnea-cough clusters were consistently reported. The techniques of symptom cluster identification remain a research tool, but one with considerable potential clinical importance. Further research should validate our analytical techniques, and expand our knowledge about SC and their clinical importance.

We determined the relationship between symptom severity and distress for multiple cancer symptoms, and examined patient demographic influences on severity and distress in advanced cancer. A Cochran-Armitage trend test determined whether symptom distress increased with severity. Chi-square, Fisher's exact test and logistic regression analysis examined moderate/severe ('clinically important') and distressful symptoms by age (65), gender, primary site group, and ECOG performance status. Forty-six symptoms were analyzed in 181 individuals. More than 50% of individuals with clinically important symptoms rated them as distressful. The median percentage of individuals with mild but still distressful symptoms was 25%, with a range of 0% (bad dreams) to 73% (sore mouth). In both univariate and multivariate analysis, younger (

To evaluate cancer-related fatigue (CRF) by objective measurements to determine if CRF is a more centrally or peripherally mediated disorder, cancer patients and matched noncancer controls completed a Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and underwent neuromuscular testing. Cancer patients had fatigue measured by the BFI, were off chemotherapy and radiation (for more than four weeks), had a hemoglobin level higher than 10 g/dL, and were neither receiving antidepressants nor were depressed on a screening question. The controls were screened for depression and matched by age, gender, and body mass index. Neuromuscular testing involved a sustained submaximal elbow flexion contraction (SC) at 30% maximal level (30% maximum elbow flexion force). Endurance time (ET) was measured from the beginning of the SC to the time when participants could not maintain the SC. Evoked twitch force (TF), a measure of muscle fatigue, and compound action potential (M-wave), an assessment of neuromuscular-junction transmission were performed during the SC. Compared with controls, the CRF group had a higher BFI score (P<0.001), a shorter ET (P<0.001), and a greater TF with the SC (CRF>controls, P<0.05). This indicated less muscle fatigue. There was a greater TF (P<0.05) at the end of the SC, indicating greater central fatigue, in the CRF group, which failed to recruit muscle (to continue the SC), as well as the controls. M-Wave amplitude was lower in the CRF group than in the controls (P<0.01), indicating impaired neuromuscular junction conduction with CRF unrelated to central fatigue (M-wave amplitude did not change with SC). These data demonstrate that CRF patients exhibited greater central fatigue, indicated by shorter ET and less voluntary muscle recruitment during an SC relative to controls.