Depression screening and patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.

Anna Meijer, Michelle Roseman, Katherine Milette, James C Coyne, Michael E Stefanek, Roy C Ziegelstein, Erin Arthurs, Allison Leavens, Steven C Palmer, Donna E Stewart, Peter de Jonge, Brett D Thombs
Author Information
  1. Anna Meijer: Interdisciplinary Center for Psychiatric Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes.
METHODS: Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT.
RESULTS: There were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37).
CONCLUSIONS: The one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care.

References

  1. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Dec 1;151(11):784-92 [PMID: 19949144]
  2. Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Aug 1;58(3):175-89 [PMID: 16084838]
  3. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;36(2):246-50 [PMID: 11982548]
  4. BMJ. 2011 Aug 18;343:d4825 [PMID: 21852353]
  5. Acta Oncol. 2010 Nov;49(8):1235-45 [PMID: 20515422]
  6. J Affect Disord. 2007 Apr;99(1-3):259-64 [PMID: 17055588]
  7. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Sep 20;26(27):4488-96 [PMID: 18802161]
  8. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 27;166(21):2314-21 [PMID: 17130383]
  9. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 10;3:25 [PMID: 14606960]
  10. Future Oncol. 2010 Jun;6(6):877-80 [PMID: 20528223]
  11. Br J Cancer. 1991 Aug;64(2):353-6 [PMID: 1892763]
  12. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981 Apr;38(4):381-9 [PMID: 6260053]
  13. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001 Dec;22(6):990-6 [PMID: 11738161]
  14. J Psychosom Res. 2003 Apr;54(4):279-87 [PMID: 12670603]
  15. CMAJ. 2008 Apr 8;178(8):997-1003 [PMID: 18390942]
  16. J Psychiatr Res. 1994 Jan-Feb;28(1):57-84 [PMID: 8064641]
  17. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2004 Mar-Apr;26(2):121-8 [PMID: 15038929]
  18. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jul;122(2):573-8 [PMID: 19960243]
  19. Palliat Med. 2003 Oct;17(7):596-603 [PMID: 14594150]
  20. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1998 May;28(5):333-8 [PMID: 9703862]
  21. J Affect Disord. 2011 Jun;131(1-3):1-7 [PMID: 20732716]
  22. J Affect Disord. 2009 Apr;114(1-3):193-9 [PMID: 18757101]
  23. Ann Intern Med. 2002 May 21;136(10):760-4 [PMID: 12020145]
  24. Acta Oncol. 2010 Apr;49(3):305-12 [PMID: 20156115]
  25. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;(32):57-71 [PMID: 15263042]
  26. Psychooncology. 2008 Jul;17(7):668-75 [PMID: 17992701]
  27. Cancer Nurs. 2010 Jan-Feb;33(1):19-27 [PMID: 19926982]
  28. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001 Apr;21(4):273-81 [PMID: 11312041]
  29. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006 Jan;31(1):5-12 [PMID: 16442477]
  30. JAMA. 2008 Nov 12;300(18):2161-71 [PMID: 19001627]
  31. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Aug 6;95(15):1110-7 [PMID: 12902440]
  32. Palliat Med. 2006 Jun;20(4):413-8 [PMID: 16875111]
  33. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Jan;40(1):58-66 [PMID: 10631623]
  34. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Apr;20(3 Suppl):21-35 [PMID: 11306229]
  35. CMAJ. 2012 Mar 6;184(4):413-8 [PMID: 21930744]
  36. Psychooncology. 2011 Jun;20(6):655-63 [PMID: 21381148]
  37. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:59-82 [PMID: 11148299]
  38. Psychooncology. 2010 Apr;19(4):399-407 [PMID: 19455591]
  39. Science. 1989 Mar 31;243(4899):1668-74 [PMID: 2648573]
  40. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2004 Jul;38(7):526-31 [PMID: 15255825]
  41. Psychooncology. 2004 Dec;13(12):893-7 [PMID: 15457540]
  42. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2010 Spring;21(1):49-59 [PMID: 20204904]
  43. J Psychosom Res. 2007 Jul;63(1):83-91 [PMID: 17586341]
  44. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2011 Dec;17(4):403-8 [PMID: 20889722]
  45. Lancet. 2008 Jul 5;372(9632):40-8 [PMID: 18603157]
  46. BMJ. 2010 Feb 08;340:c693 [PMID: 20142325]
  47. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006 Jun 29;3:7 [PMID: 16805916]
  48. Br J Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;189:484-93 [PMID: 17139031]
  49. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000 Oct;20(4):259-65 [PMID: 11027907]
  50. Psychooncology. 2006 Sep;15(9):817-27 [PMID: 16353288]

Grants

  1. 108456/Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. SKI 83345/Canadian Institutes of Health Research

MeSH Term

Depressive Disorder, Major
Humans
Neoplasms
Prognosis
Sensitivity and Specificity

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0depressionscreeningcancercarepatientsoutcomestreatmentRCT1accuracyeffecteithercompareddepressiveMDDstudiessystematicreviewswhetherevidencebenefits23alonecontextcomprehensivetrialusualsymptomsDepressionBACKGROUND:SeveralpracticeguidelinesrecommendexaminedobjectiveevaluatepotentialassessingtoolseffectivenessMETHODS:DatasourcesCINAHLCochraneEMBASEISIMEDLINEPsycINFOSCOPUSdatabasesJanuary242011manualjournalsearchesreferencelistscitationtrackingregistryArticlesincludedinstrumentvalidcriterionmajordisorderplaceborandomizedcontrolledassessedRESULTS:19RCTsinvestigatedeffectsScreeninggenerallysmallsamplesizesmedian = 17casesusedexploratorymethodssetsample-specificcutoffscoresvariedsubstantiallyacrossnurse-deliveredinterventionreducedmoderatelysize = 037CONCLUSIONS:onestudyreviewedreportedmodestimprovementfoundoptimalimprovesevaluatedidentifieddepressedviaphysicianrecognitionreferralcontrolgroupaccesspatientcancer:review

Similar Articles

Cited By (24)