Risk factors, prevalence, and course of severe fatigue after breast cancer treatment: a meta-analysis involving 12,327 breast cancer survivors
Open accessAbstract
Background This meta-analysis aimed to (i) examine demographic, disease-related, and treatment-related risk factors, (ii) estimate the prevalence, and (iii) describe the course of severe fatigue following breast cancer (BC) treatment.Methods PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception up to 23 November 2015. Risk factors and prevalence rates were analyzed with inverse variance random-effects analyses. Heterogeneity was studied with sensitivity analyses.Results Twenty-seven studies were included (N = 12 327). Breast cancer survivors (BCS) with a partner were at lower risk for severe fatigue than survivors without a partner [risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-0.98]. Survivors with stage II or III cancer, and survivors treated with chemotherapy were at higher risk for severe fatigue than survivors with stage 0 or I cancer and without chemotherapy (RR respectively 1.18, 95% CI 1.08-1.28; 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.19). Survivors treated with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and survivors with this combination plus hormone therapy were at higher risk than survivors with other treatment combinations (RR respectively 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.33; 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.66). Survivors treated with surgery and surgery plus radiotherapy were at lower risk than survivors with additional treatments (RR respectively 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98; 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.96). Hormone and targeted therapy were no significant risk factors. The pooled prevalence of severe fatigue was 26.9% (95% CI 23.2-31.0), but this should be interpreted with caution because of high heterogeneity. A relatively large decrease in the prevalence of severe fatigue seemed to occur in the first half year after treatment completion.Conclusions Approximately one in four BCS suffer from severe fatigue. Risk factors of severe fatigue were higher disease stages, chemotherapy and receiving the combination of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, both with and without hormone therapy. Having a partner, receiving only surgery, and surgery plus radiotherapy decreased the risk.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Higher disease stages, chemotherapy, and receiving the combination of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy with or without hormone therapy are risk factors of severe fatigue in breast cancer survivors; conversely, having a partner, performing surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy decreased the risk.
“A recent meta-analysis (Abrahams et al., 2016) focusing on cancer related fatigue related risk factors identified higher disease stages, CT and receiving the combination of surgery, radiotherapy (RT) and CT with or without hormone therapy (HT) as risk factors of severe fatigue in this population. Conversely, having a partner, performing surgery alone or surgery plus RT decreased the risk.”
From A guided internet-delivered individually-tailored ACT-influenced cognitive behavioural intervention to improve psychosocial outcomes in breast cancer survivors (iNNOVBC): Study protocol (2019) · cites this paper as Abrahams et al., 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 383
- Authors
- Abrahams, H. J. G., Gielissen, M. F. M., Schmits, I. C., Verhagen, C. A. H. H. V. M., Rovers, M. M., & Knoop, H.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Abrahams, H.J.G.
- Venue
- Annals of Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 965-974
- ISSN
- 0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2295928384
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Pink Ribbon (2012.WO26.C139)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
- Keywords
- breast cancer survivors, post-treatment fatigue, risk factors, prevalence, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, targeted therapy, stage at diagnosis, marital status, cancer treatment side effects, quality of life, cancer survivorship, psychosocial factors, physical activity, social support, nutrition, cancer-related fatigue
- MeSH terms
- Cancer Survivors, Breast Neoplasms, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Neoplasm Staging, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review