Search

Background: Depression screening in patients with cancer is recommended by major clinical guidelines, although the evidence on individual screening tools is limited for this population. Here, the authors assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2 established screening instruments: the depression modules of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D), in a representative sample of patients with cancer.Methods: This multicenter study was conducted with a proportional, stratified, random sample of 2141 patients with cancer across all major tumor sites and treatment settings. The PHQ-9 and HADS-D were assessed and compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition diagnosis of major depressive disorder using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Oncology as the criterion standard.Results: The diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 and HADS-D was fair for diagnosing major depressive disorder, with areas under the ROC curves of 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.79) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.77), respectively. The 2 questionnaires did not differ significantly in their areas under the ROC curves (P = .15). The PHQ-9 with a cutoff score ≥7 had the best screening performance, with a sensitivity of 83% (95% confidence interval, 78%-89%) and a specificity of 61% (95% confidence interval, 59%-63%). The American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline screening algorithm had a sensitivity of 44% (95% confidence interval, 36%-51%) and a specificity of 84% (95% confidence interval, 83%-85%).Conclusions: In patients with cancer, the screening performance of both the PHQ-9 and the HADS-D was limited compared with a standardized diagnostic interview. Costs and benefits of routinely screening all patients with cancer should be weighed carefully. Cancer 2017;123:4236-4243. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Demoralization refers to a state in which there is a perceived inability to cope, that is associated with a sense of disheartenment and a loss of hope and meaning. This study investigated the co-occurrence versus independence of demoralization with mental disorders and suicidal ideation to evaluate its features as a concept of distress in the context of severe illness.Methods: In a cross-sectional sample of 430 mixed cancer patients, we assessed demoralization with the Demoralization Scale (DS); the 4-week prevalence of mood, anxiety, and adjustment disorders and suicidal ideation with the standardized Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Oncology (CIDI-O); and depressive symptoms with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). We compared the relative risk (RR) for mental disorders associated with demoralization to that associated with self-reported depression.Results: Clinically relevant levels of demoralization were present in 21% of the patients. Demoralization co-occurred with a mood/anxiety disorder in 7%; 14% were demoralized in absence of any mood/anxiety disorder. Demoralization and adjustment disorders co-occurred in 2%. The RR for any mood/anxiety disorder was 4.0 in patients with demoralization (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-6.2) and 3.0 in those with depression (95% CI, 1.9-4.6). Demoralization, but not depression, was associated with a significantly increased risk for suicidal ideation after controlling for mental disorders (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5).Conclusions: Clinically relevant demoralization frequently occurs independently of a mental disorder in patients with cancer and has a unique contribution to suicidal ideation. Demoralization is a useful concept to identify profiles of psychological distress symptoms amenable to interventions improving psychological well-being in this population. Cancer 2017;123:3394-401. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The authors investigated whether cancer patients who have comorbid mental health disorders (MD) are at greater risk of early retirement compared with those who do not have MD. METHODS Individuals ages 18 to 55 years from a consecutive sample of patients who were admitted for inpatient oncologic treatment were interviewed using structured clinical interviews to ascertain MD. The patients were followed for 15 months, and the date of early retirement was documented. Rates of early retirement per 100 person-years (py) in patients with and without MD were compared using multivariate Poisson regression models. RESULTS At baseline, 491 patients were interviewed, and 150 of those patients (30.6%) were diagnosed with MD. Forty-one patients began full early retirement during follow-up. In patients with MD, the incidence of early retirement was 9.3 per 100 py compared with 6.1 per 100 py in mentally healthy patients. The crude rate ratio (RR) was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.8). The effect of MD on early retirement was modified in part by income: in patients with low income, the adjusted RR was 11.7, whereas no effect was observed in higher income groups. Patients with depression were at greater risk of retirement when they had higher income (RR, 3.4; P = .05). The effects of anxiety (RR, 2.4; P = .05), adjustment disorders (RR, 1.7; P = .21), and alcohol dependence (RR, 1.8; P = .40) on early retirement were equal across income groups. CONCLUSIONS Mental health conditions are risk factors for early retirement in cancer patients, although this effect differs according to the type of disorder and the patient's income level. Cancer 2014;120:2199-2206. © 2014 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a considerable body of evidence about the adverse effects of cancer and cancer treatments on employment, work ability, work performance, and work satisfaction among cancer survivors. There is also a growing consensus that cancer survivorship research needs to address the large variety of short-term and long-term work-related problems and that programs to support return to work and employment should be developed and integrated into the follow-up survivorship care of cancer patients. Cancer survivorship and employment can be considered from the perspective of the cancer survivor, the caregiver and the family, the employer and coworkers, the health care providers, and the community or society-elements that comprise many similarities but also differences between Europe and the Unites States and that may affect employment and return to work among cancer survivors in different ways. Previous research has specifically addressed the likelihood and timeliness of work return, including factors that promote and hinder return to work and work performance, and intervention studies and programs that focus on psychological, physical, pharmacologic, or multidisciplinary approaches to work. The area of work disability has emerged as an international field with research from areas throughout the globe. In this article, the authors provide an overview of the current state of scientific research in these areas and further provide a cancer survivorship and work model that integrates significant individual cancer-related, treatment-related, and work-related factors and outcomes. The report concludes with a discussion of European and American contributions and possible future directions for the enhancement of current efforts. Cancer 2013;119(11 suppl):2151-59. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]