RNPilotNursing research

Possible Bioenergetic Biomarker for Chronic Cancer-Related Fatigue.

Chao-Pin Hsiao, Barbara Daly, Mei-Kuang Chen and 4 others

PMID 34380980

WHAT IT FOUND

The link between BCS1L gene expression and chronic fatigue after prostate cancer radiation was not proven in 20 men, although fatigue rose and BCS1L expression fell over 24 months.

Key findings

01The hypothesized link between lower BCS1L expression and greater fatigue at 24 months was a trend (r=0.32, p=.09) and did not reach significance.

02Patient-reported fatigue rose from a mean PROMIS-F score of 47.9 at baseline to 53.5 at completion of radiation and 53.8 at 24 months, above the T-score 50 threshold considered fatigued.

03BCS1L expression was significantly lower at the end of radiation (delta Ct mean 9.6) and at 24 months (delta Ct mean 9.6) than baseline (delta Ct mean 7.8).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 20 patients completed all visits, although the power analysis targeted 25. The main BCS1L-fatigue association was r=0.32 and p=.09, so it did not reach significance. No non-radiation comparison group was used, so changes cannot be separated from radiation itself or other factors. Other possible contributors to fatigue, including sleep, activity, diet, and cognitive function, were not measured. The study excluded people with untreated anemia, hypothyroidism, major psychiatric illness, sedatives, steroids, NSAIDs, second malignancy, or mitochondrial disease, so it may not apply to more complex patients.

Declared interests

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The article lists NIH and non-U.S. government research support.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read BCS1L as a proven biomarker for chronic cancer-related fatigue. The study included only 20 men, the BCS1L-fatigue association was r=0.32 and p=.09, and the study did not test a treatment or clinical test.

Read it on PubMed →