Context: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) persists months after treatment completion. Although a CRF biomarker has not yet been identified, validated self-report questionnaires are used to define and phenotype CRF in the discovery of potential biomarkers.
Objectives: The purposes of this study are to identify CRF subjects using three well-known CRF phenotyping approaches using validated self-report questionnaires and to compare the biologic profiles that are associated with each CRF phenotype.
Methods: Fatigue in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer receiving external beam radiation therapy was measured at baseline (T1), midpoint (T2), end point (T3), and one-year post-external beam radiation therapy (T4) using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Fatigue. Chronic fatigue (CF) and nonfatigue subjects were grouped based on three commonly used phenotyping approaches: 1) T4 FACT-F <43; 2) T1-T4 decline in FACT-F score ≥3 points; 3) T4 Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Fatigue T-score >50. Differential gene expressions using whole-genome microarray analysis were compared in each of the phenotyping criterion.
Results: The study enrolled 43 men, where 34%-38% had CF based on the three phenotyping approaches. Distinct gene expression patterns were observed between CF and nonfatigue subjects in each of the three CRF phenotyping approaches: 1) Approach 1 had the largest number of differentially expressed genes and 2) Approaches 2 and 3 had 40 and 21 differentially expressed genes between the fatigue groups, respectively.
Conclusion: The variation in genetic profiles for CRF suggests that phenotypic profiling for CRF should be carefully considered because it directly influences biomarker discovery investigations.
Keywords: Cancer-related fatigue; fatigue phenotypes; prostate cancer; radiation therapy; transcriptome profiles.
Published by Elsevier Inc.