2种筛查工具在肺癌化疗患者癌症相关性疲乏筛查中的效果比较  

Comparison of the effectiveness of two tools in screening cancer-related fatigue in lung cancer patients with chemotherapy

作　　者：孙琳 夏文杰 蓝倩倩 徐晶[1] 刘丹 Sun Lin;Xia Wenjie;Lan Qianqian;Xu Jing;Liu Dan(Oncology Department,Jiangsu Cancer Hospital,Nanjing 210009,China)

机构地区：[1]江苏省肿瘤医院肿瘤内科,南京210009

出　　处：《中华现代护理杂志》2024年第2期171-176,共6页Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing

基　　金：国家自然科学基金青年项目(82003106)。

摘　　要：目的比较癌症疲乏量表(CFS)与Piper疲乏修订版量表(PFS-R)在肺癌化疗患者癌症相关性疲乏(CRF)筛查中的效果。方法本研究为横断面研究。采用便利抽样法,于2022年6月—2023年3月选取在江苏省肿瘤医院肿瘤内科化疗的162例肺癌患者为研究对象,应用CFS与PFS-R进行CRF筛查,以《中国癌症相关性疲乏临床实践诊疗指南》提出的诊断标准为金标准,比较2种测评工具受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、灵敏度、特异度与约登指数。结果肺癌化疗患者CRF的发生率为61.1%(99/162)。根据是否存在CRF,将其分为CRF组(n=99)和无CRF组(n=63)。CRF组患者CFS评分、PFS-R评分均高于无CRF组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。CFS的AUC为0.840,最佳截断值为2.470分,灵敏度为0.758,特异度为0.873,约登指数为0.631;PFS-R的AUC为0.918,最佳截断值为4.500分,灵敏度为0.899,特异度为0.937,约登指数为0.836。PFS-R的AUC高于CFS,差异有统计学意义(Z=2.232,P<0.05)。结论PFS-R的评估效果更佳,更适合作为肺癌化疗患者CRF的筛查工具。Objective To compare the effectiveness of the Cancer Fatigue Scale(CFS)and the Revised Piper Fatigue Scale(PFS-R)in screening cancer-related fatigue(CRF)in lung cancer patients with chemotherapy.Methods This study was a cross-sectional study.From June 2022 to March 2023,convenience sampling was used to select 162 lung cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy in the Oncology Department of Jiangsu Cancer Hospital as the study subject.CFS and PFS-R were used for CRF screening,using the diagnostic criteria proposed in the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cancer-related Fatigue in China as the gold standard.The area under the receiver operating characteristic(AUC),sensitivity,specificity,and Youden index of the two screening tools were compared.Results The incidence of CRF in lung cancer chemotherapy patients was 61.1%(99/162).According to the presence of CRF,the patients were divided into CRF group(n=99)and non-CRF group(n=63).The CFS score and PFS-R score of patients in the CRF group were higher than those in the non-CRF group,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).The AUC of CFS was 0.840 with an optimal cutoff value of 2.470,and the sensitivity,specificity,and Youden index were 0.758,0.873,and 0.631,respectively.The AUC of PFS-R was 0.918 with an optimal cutoff value of 4.500,and the sensitivity,specificity,and Youden index were 0.899,0.937,and 0.836,respectively.The AUC of PFS-R was higher than that of CFS,and the difference was statistically significant(Z=2.232,P<0.05).Conclusions Compared with CFS,PFS-R has a better evaluation effect and is more suitable as a screening tool for CRF in lung cancer patients with chemotherapy.

关 键 词：肺肿瘤 化疗 癌症相关性疲乏 筛查工具 护理评估 

分 类 号：R473.73[医药卫生—护理学]