PubMed · 11111712
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Bazin. 2000. [Research notes].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11111712/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the proposed cancer-related fatigue (CRF) diagnostic criteria in a sample of cancer survivors. More accurate prevalence estimates of CRF may result in improved diagnosis and management of one of the most common symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment. METHODS: Three hundred seventy-nine individuals who had been treated with chemotherapy, either alone or in combination with radiation therapy, were surveyed. Patients were asked background questions about their current condition, their medical history, and the frequency of fatigue during their chemotherapy. Additionally, patients who reported experiencing fatigue at least a few days each month during treatment were asked a series of questions about the impact of fatigue on their daily functioning. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one (37%) individuals reported at least 2 weeks of fatigue in the previous month. Of the respondents who had received their last treatment more than 5 years ago, 33% still reported at least a 2-week period of fatigue in the month before the interview. Evaluation of the proposed criteria revealed that 17% of respondents met at least two criteria for CRF. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of diagnosable CRF in the individuals in this sample, most of whom had completed treatment more than 1 year ago, was 17%-lower than expected based on previous reports that have used less-strict criteria. In a sizable number of people, CRF persists well beyond active treatment and should be a focus of intervention. Although they will require replication in other samples and clinical validation, these formal diagnostic criteria can be a step toward common language and a better understanding of the severity range and persistence of CRF.
BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the procedure of choice for live kidney donors. The purpose of this survey therefore was to determine the current practices, attitudes, and plans regarding LDN in high-volume renal transplant centers. METHODS: Medical directors of the 31 highest volume kidney transplant centers were surveyed via telephone. Kidney transplant data for 1998 and 1999 were collected. RESULTS: The surveyed centers performed 5213 transplantations in 1998, representing 43% of all kidney transplantations done nationally. Twelve (39%) of the 31 centers performed LDN in 1998, increasing to 20 (65%) of 31 in 1999. Of 1174 live donor operations performed by the 20 centers in 1999, 365 (31%) were LDNs. Among the surveyed centers, four had no plans to begin an LDN program. The most commonly cited incentive for LDN was "shorter recovery time," whereas the most common disincentive was "concern about graft quality." A combination of observation and animate laboratory was the most commonly reported method of learning the LDN procedure. Six-month follow-up interviews found that 26 (84%) of 31 centers had performed LDN; only 1 of the 31 centers had no plans to perform LDNs. CONCLUSIONS: LDN may be the de facto procedure of choice for live donors within the next year. Efforts should now focus on improving techniques for performing and teaching this procedure.