Combined therapy versus usual care for the treatment of depression in oncologic patients: a randomized controlled trial

Effects of Narrative Exposure Therapy for Treating Depressive and Anxious Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Narrative exposure therapy (NET) has been used in various contexts for the treatment of the effects of trauma, with promising results in clinical trials. However, its effects on anxiety and depression are still unclear. The present study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of NET on depression and anxiety.

METHODS

The Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Web of Science core collection, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Database, and Wangfang databases were searched from the earliest records to March 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, evaluated the risk of bias, and cross-checked the data. Meta-analysis was performed using the program RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total of 754 participants were included in the study. The results showed that NET reduced both the depression (standard mean difference [SMD]=-0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.73--0.29, p<0.00001) and anxiety (SMD=-0.65, 95% CI -1.13--0.18, p=0.007) scores of the patients. Furthermore, NET was found to alleviate negative emotions associated with guilt (mean difference [MD]=-3.60, 95% CI -5.52--1.68, p=0.0005) and negative change (MD=-5.80, 95% CI -9.76--1.83, p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

This analysis showed that NET can alleviate depression and anxiety. It may thus be used in clinical settings to alleviate patients' negative feelings and aid their overall recovery.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Care of the adult cancer patient at the end of life: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines

•This ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations for end-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer. •It details care that is focused on comfort, quality of life and approaching death of patients with advanced cancer. •All recommendations were compiled by a multidisciplinary group of experts. •Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the authors’ collective expert opinion.

Nonpharmacological Interventions for Pain Management in Lung Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Background:

The presence of lung cancer is almost always associated with pain, a symptom that causes severe distress in patients. Although many pharmacological methods are available to manage pain in this oncologic population, the medications often cause undesirable sideeffects and inadequate relief. Nonpharmacological interventions can be used as adjuvants to pharmacological interventions in reducing pain and increasing quality of life.

Objectives:

The purpose of this review is to compare the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing pain in lung cancer patients.

Materials and Methods:

This is a systematic review study guided by the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol. Interventions identified in the present systematic review have been categorized as physical treatment, technologybased, cognitive behavioral, coping, and coaching.

Results:

Results indicate that the nonpharmacological interventions such as physical treatment interventions, selfmanagement and coaching interventions, cognitive behavioral interventions, and technologybased interventions or coping skills interventions had limited and shortterm effects on alleviating pain among the patients. However, previous studies have provided limited evidence regarding nonpharmacologic therapy due to the lack of a comparison group, small sample sizes, and lack of longterm followup periods to determine whether sustained effects are feasible.

Conclusion:

Healthcare professionals should consider additional research on the added advantage of utilizing the nonpharmacological interventions as an adjunct option while managing pain in lung cancer patients.

A network meta-analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression

No network meta-analysis has examined the relative effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression, while this is a very important clinical issue. We conducted systematic searches in bibliographical databases to identify randomized trials in which a psychotherapy and a pharmacotherapy for the acute or long-term treatment of depression were compared with each other, or in which the combination of a psychotherapy and a pharmacotherapy was compared with either one alone. The main outcome was treatment response (50% improvement between baseline and endpoint). Remission and acceptability (defined as study drop-out for any reason) were also examined. Possible moderators that were assessed included chronic and treatment-resistant depression and baseline severity of depression. Data were pooled as relative risk (RR) using a random-effects model. A total of 101 studies with 11,910 patients were included. Depression in most studies was moderate to severe. In the network meta-analysis, combined treatment was more effective than psychotherapy alone (RR=1.27; 95% CI: 1.14-1.39) and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.14-1.37) in achieving response at the end of treatment. No significant difference was found between psychotherapy alone and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.99; 95% CI: 0.92-1.08). Similar results were found for remission. Combined treatment (RR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.05-1.45) and psychotherapy alone (RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.02-1.32) were more acceptable than pharmacotherapy. Results were similar for chronic and treatment-resistant depression. The combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy seems to be the best choice for patients with moderate depression. More research is needed on long-term effects of treatments (including cost-effectiveness), on the impact of specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, and on the effects in specific populations of patients.

Citalopram and group psychotherapy in breast cancer patients: A randomized clinical trial

Background: Depression is a common psychiatric disorder in breast cancer patients. This study was designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of group psychotherapy on breast cancer patients with depressive disorder who took citalopram.

Methods: This clinical trial was conducted on 40 breast cancer patients with depressive disorder. The control group received citalopram 20-40 mg/ day for 12 weeks and the intervention group participated in 8 sessions of group psychotherapy in addition to the same dose of citalopram. At the baseline and 3, 6, and 12 weeks after treatment, patients were followed- up. Treatment outcomes and quality of life were compared between the 2 groups.

Results: Overall, the depression score of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline with the mean of 11.6±1.6 was signed in the range of clinical depression and after intervention it declined to 8.8±3.6 (in the 3rd week), 7.1±3.9 (6th week), and 5.9±4.5 (12th week). Furthermore, HADS anxiety score at baseline with the mean of 12.6±2.6 was signed in the range of clinical anxiety and after intervention it declined to 9.1±3.0, 7.3±4.1, and 6.0±4.0, respectively. This improvement was significantly more in the combined therapy intervention group (p<0.001). The mean score of quality of life based on WHO QOL-BREF questionnaire increased by 1.85 fold in the case group, improved from 44.09 to 81.70, while the slight change was observed in the control group (p<0.001). During the treatment, no significant adverse drug event was observed in the 2 groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: Group psychotherapy has a significant effect on improving depression, anxiety, and quality of life in breast cancer patients.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to June week 4 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 2017 week 27) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to July week 4 2017). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of 10 studies (885 participants), seven of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update we included one additional unpublished study. These new data contributed to the secondary analysis, while the results of the primary analysis remained unchanged.For acute-phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found no difference between antidepressants as a class and placebo on symptoms of depression measured both as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants; very low certainty evidence) and as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants; very low certainty evidence). No trials reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, showing no difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants; very low certainty evidence). No clear evidence of a beneficial effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from our analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low certainty evidence). In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants as a class compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38, seven RCTs, 479 participants; very low certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty (quality) of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low certainty evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results, clear implications for practice cannot be deduced. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. To better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Designing an Internet Intervention for Emerging Adults Who Experience Troubled Relationships

This article describes how the Internet Intervention Model (IIM) was used as an organizing framework to design a theoretically based Internet intervention for emerging adults who experience troubled intimate partner relationships. In the design process, the team addressed six fundamental questions related to the several components of the IIM. Decisions made regarding the design of the intervention based on the six questions are described. We focus in particular on how the intervention is based on the Theory of Emerging Adulthood and the Theory of Narrative Identity.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Putting evidence into practice: evidence-based interventions for depression

Depression is a distressing emotion that occurs during various times of the cancer trajectory. Depression often goes unrecognized and untreated, which can significantly affect cost, quality of life, and treatment adherence. The Oncology Nursing Society's Putting Evidence Into Practice depression project team reviewed current literature to identify evidence-based interventions to reduce depression in people with cancer. Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions were evaluated, and opportunities for nurses to integrate recommendations into practice are offered in this article.

Meta-analysis of efficacy of interventions for elevated depressive symptoms in adults diagnosed with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are at increased risk for depression compared with individuals with no cancer diagnosis, yet few interventions target depressed cancer patients.

METHODS

Efficacy of psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic interventions for depression in cancer patients who met an entry threshold for depressive symptoms was examined by meta-analysis. Five electronic databases were systematically reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials meeting the selection criteria. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges' g and were pooled to compare pre- and postrandomization depressive symptoms with a random effects model. Subgroup analyses tested moderators of effect sizes, such as comparison of different intervention modalities, with a mixed effects model. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials (six psychotherapeutic and four pharmacologic studies) met the selection criteria; 1362 participants with mixed cancer types and stages had been randomly assigned to treatment groups. One outlier trial was removed from analyses. The random effects model showed interventions to be superior to control conditions on reducing depressive symptoms postintervention (Hedges' g = 0.43, 95% confidence interval = 0.30 to 0.56, P < .001). In the four psychotherapeutic trials with follow-up assessment, interventions were more effective than control conditions up to 12-18 months after patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (P < .001). Although each approach was more effective than the control conditions in improving depressive symptoms (P < .001), subgroup analyses showed that cognitive behavioral therapy appeared more effective than problem-solving therapy (P = .01), but not more effective than pharmacologic intervention (P = .07).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that psychological and pharmacologic approaches can be targeted productively toward cancer patients with elevated depressive symptoms. Research is needed to maximize effectiveness, accessibility, and integration into clinical care of interventions for depressed cancer patients.

Factors related to daily life interference in lung cancer patients: a cross-sectional regression tree study

PURPOSE

To identify the symptom combination patterns and symptom severity levels that induce severe symptom interference in daily life activities, including physical and psychological activity interference in lung cancer patients.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional descriptive study using convenience sampling, 131 participants were recruited at a medical center in northern Taiwan. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was used to assess performance status, and the Taiwanese version of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-T) was used to assess symptom severity and symptom interference in daily life activities including physical and psychological activities. Regression tree models were applied to examine variable combinations for symptom interference level in daily life activities, including physical and psychological activity interference.

RESULTS

Study results revealed that the performance status is the key discriminator of the symptom interference level in daily life and physical activities, but distress severity is the key discriminating factor of the symptom interference level in psychological activities. The performance status and distress severity, plus other factors, further specifically show the discrimination paths and interactions between the risk groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an alternative approach to identify low- and high-risk groups of symptom interference among lung cancer patients in Taiwan. Increased awareness and further understanding of the risk combinations and discriminate levels of symptom severity that induced high symptom interference offer different perspectives to develop patient-centered care planning for lung cancer patient rehabilitation.

Tratamiento farmacológico de la depresión en cáncer

Objetivo: La depresión mayor es uno de los trastornos psiquiátricos más ampliamente reconocidos en los enfermos de cáncer. En España alrededor de un 16,49% de los pacientes oncológicos desarrollan un Trastorno Depresivo Mayor. Cuando la sintomatología depresiva interfiere en el adecuado funcionamiento del paciente oncológico, los antidepresivos son el tratamiento de primera línea. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la eficacia de las distintas opciones farmacológicas utilizadas para la depresión en pacientes oncológicos.Método: Se realiza una búsqueda bibliográfica en la base de datos PubMed mediante los términos:cancer AND depression treatment AND antidepressant . Se analizaron un total de 36 artículos con un diseño tipo ensayo clínico. Resultados: Se ha encontrado que los fármacos inhibidores de la recaptación de serotonina (ISRS) son eficaces para el tratamiento de la depresión en pacientes con cáncer. La paroxetina es una de las más eficaces. Los antidepresivos de perfil dual también han demostrado eficacia por su rapidez de acción y su utilidad en síntomas colaterales como los síntomas vasomotores y los dolores. La mirtazapina es de gran utilidad en síntomas como el dolor, náuseas, insomnio y ansiedad.Conclusiones: La elección de la medicación debe estar basada en el perfil de síntomas del paciente, el potencial beneficio, la tolerabilidad y el riesgo/beneficio con el propósito de diseñar una estrategia para cada paciente. Los fármacos que han demostrado mayor eficacia y tolerabilidad en nuestro estudio han sido los ISRS, la mirtazapina y los antidepresivos de acción dual.