Fatigue is having high prevalence and increased acknowledgment of negative effect on the patient's well-being which has resulted in fatigue being important research variable in breast cancer patients. The recent development shows greater receptivity of health professionals to assessing cancer-related fatigue (CRF). In this review, an attempt has been made to identify CRF instruments which have been used in breast cancer patients with the detailed description about the instruments and their psychometric properties.

A search was conducted from January 2000 to April 2020 from electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar. The studies were included if the instrument was used to measure fatigue in breast cancer patients and its description and psychometric properties reported in breast cancer patients. The search was limited to studies in the English language and use of English version of instruments.

Among 34 CRF instruments, 9 instruments were included according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. From nine instruments, six were multidimensional, two were unidimensional, and one instrument was quality-of-life (QOL) subscale. All the scales have showed accepted reliability and validity in breast cancer patients. A minimal clinically important difference was available for Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory — Short Form, Brief Fatigue Inventory, Piper Fatigue Scale — Revised, FACIT Fatigue scale, and Fatigue symptom inventory instruments.

This review will help healthcare providers who are dealing with breast cancer patients to acknowledge and better understand what their patients are experiencing. The most appropriate tool will allow healthcare providers to use for holistic assessment of CRF. The instrument will help them to monitor their patient's condition or treatment progress, so it can be incorporated into treatment decisions for better management of fatigue.

This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body interventions (MBIs) for the management of cancer-related fatigue.

A comprehensive search on multiple databases was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from January 2008 to December 2019. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included reviews using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).

Sixteen reviews published between 2010 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the 16 included systematic reviews was moderate (score 4–7) to high (score ≥ 8) on the 11-point AMSTAR scale. The most common methodological weaknesses were the lack of a list of excluded studies (n = 15, 93.8%) and a priori protocol (n = 2,87.5%). Furthermore, most of the systematic reviews did not search the gray literature for eligible studies (n = 13, 81.3%).

This study has revealed the need for high methodological quality systematic reviews on the MBIs for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Thus, further research should focus on methodologically strong systematic reviews by providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, and providing an excluded primary studies list. Additionally, the researchers should conduct systematic reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common and one of the most important issues in palliative medicine, and it has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on patient quality of life (QoL). The present pilot randomized controlled study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of methylprednisolone (MP) for CRF in advanced cancer patients.

Our study was planned as a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to an MP group, who received 32 mg/day of MP orally for 7 days, and a placebo group. The primary endpoint was an improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) score for fatigue from baseline to day 7. The secondary endpoints were improvements in appetite loss and QoL as well as evaluating the safety of corticosteroids as palliative therapy.

It was not possible to complete patient registration. In total, 35 patients were randomly assigned to an MP group (n = 18) and a placebo group (n = 17). The mean changes in VAS score for fatigue were –9.06 in the placebo group and –1.56 in the MP group, and for appetite loss –6.44 in the placebo group and –8.06 in the MP group. In addition, there was no evidence that methylprednisolone improved appetite loss or QoL compared to placebo. The incidence of adverse effects was not greater in the MP group.

We conclude that our sample size was too small to prove the efficacy of methylprednisolone in improving fatigue. Our results were reported as a pilot study performed to support a subsequent larger trial.