Comparing FACIT-fatigue and EORTC QLQ-FA12 for assessing the quality of life in people with cancer-related fatigue.

[PURPOSE OF REVIEW] Two common quality of life (QoL) questionnaires for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Fatigue 12 (QLQ-FA12) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue). This systematic review compared their content, validity, and psychometric properties.

[RECENT FINDINGS] Twenty-four studies were included. The QLQ-FA12 (12 items) provides physical, emotional, and cognitive subscales, while the FACIT-Fatigue (13 items) captures self-reported fatigue and its impact on daily function. Both instruments demonstrated validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity. Construct validity was supported by correlations with QoL and physical-function measures, and confirmatory factor analyses upheld their intended dimensional structures. The QLQ-FA12's 4-point question format offers distinct domain scores, whereas the FACIT-Fatigue's 5-point statement format yields a single total score. The QLQ-FA12 is preferred when a multidimensional profile is needed, such as in trials addressing specific fatigue drivers or pairing with QLQ-C30 domains. The FACIT-Fatigue suits brief screening or large-scale studies where efficiency and a single total fatigue score are priorities.

[SUMMARY] The EORTC QLQ-FA12 and FACIT-Fatigue are both sufficiently validated for assessing CRF-related QoL. The QLQ-FA12 is more appropriate when a multidimensional profile is required, whereas FACIT-Fatigue suits contexts needing a unidimensional total severity score.