Psychiatry Investig Search

CLOSE


Psychiatry Investig > Epub ahead of print
[Epub ahead of print]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2018.10.26    Published online January 7, 2019.
Multidimensional Comparison of Cancer-Related Fatigue and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The Role of Psychophysiological Markers
Hye Youn Park1, Hong Jun Jeon2, Young Rong Bang3, In-Young Yoon1,4
1Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
2Department of Psychiatry, Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3Department of Psychiatry, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea
4Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Correspondence: In-Young Yoon ,Tel: +82-31-787-7433, Fax: +82-31-787-4058, Email: iyoon@snu.ac.kr
Received: October 19, 2017   Revised: June 9, 2018   Accepted: October 26, 2018   Published online: January 7, 2019
Abstract

Objective
The present study compared cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) using multidimensional measurements with the aim of better understanding characteristics and exploring markers of two similar fatigue syndromes.
Methods
Twenty-five patients with CRF and twenty patients with CFS completed questionnaires, including the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Additionally, levels of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), heart rate variability (HRV), and electroencephalography (EEG) were obtained. Neurocognitive functioning was also evaluated.
Results
Both groups showed comparable levels of psychological variables, including fatigue. Compared to CFS subjects, CRF patients had significantly higher hs-CRP levels and a reduced HRV-index. The within-group analyses revealed that the FSS score of the CRF group was significantly related to scores on the HADS-anxiety, HADS-depression, and PSQI scales. In the CFS group, FSS scores were significantly associated with scores on the PSS and the absolute delta, theta, and alpha powers in frontal EEG.
Conclusion
Findings indicate that different pathophysiological mechanisms underlie CFS and CRF. Inflammatory marker and HRV may be potential biomarkers for distinguishing two fatigue syndromes and frontal EEG parameters may be quantitative biomarkers for CFS.
Key words   Fatigue, Cancer, Biomarkers, Electrocardiography, Electroencephalography
TOOLS
Share:
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •   Scopus
  • 450 View
  • 49 Download


ABOUT
AUTHOR INFORMATION
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
Editorial Office
#522, 27, Seochojungang-ro 24-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06601, Korea
Tel: +82-2-537-6171    Fax: +82-2-537-6174    E-mail: knpa1945@hanmail.net                

Copyright © 2019 by Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Developed in M2community

Close layer
prev next