Sleeping With the Enemy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with lung cancer have the poorest sleep quality compared with other patients with cancer and noncancer control subjects. However, few studies have examined sleep longitudinally. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize and correlate sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, sleep-wake actigraphy, and quality of life (QOL) before, during, and after chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Using a prospective repeated-measures 1-group design, patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy for NSCLC were recruited. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Lung (FACT-L), and Motionlogger Actigraph were used for data collection. RESULTS: Poor nocturnal sleep and QOL were evident among 29 patients with NSCLC before treatment. The FACT-L subscale scores worsened and then improved significantly from baseline through 2 rounds of chemotherapy. Objective sleep duration and sleep efficiency were positively associated with FACT-L scores, whereas objective sleep latency and wake after sleep onset were negatively associated with FACT-L scores. Sleepy patients had significantly worse FACT-L scores than did nonsleepy patients. The FACT-L subscale items that demonstrated significant worsening and then improvement over time were shortness of breath, weight loss, coughing, and chest tightness. Lung cancer patients experience early and middle insomnia before and during treatment. CONCLUSION: Poor sleep quality is common in patients receiving treatment for NSCLC and is related to poorer QOL and respiratory symptoms. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Patients with NSCLC require routine screening for sleep disturbances. A positive screen for sleep disturbance warrants a thorough sleep assessment using practice guidelines and, if necessary, referral to a sleep specialist for diagnosis and treatment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 75 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.