ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in cancer patients assessed by diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments, and to study differences in prevalence between type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase.MethodsA literature search was conducted in four databases to select studies on the prevalence of depression among adult cancer patients during or after treatment. A total of 211 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled mean prevalence of depression was calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.ResultsHospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—depression subscale (HADS-D) ≥ 8, HADS-D ≥11, Center for Epidemiologic Studies ≥ 16, and (semi-)structured diagnostic interviews were used to define depression in 66, 53, 35 and 49 studies, respectively. Respective mean prevalence of depression was 17% (95% CI = 16–19%), 8% (95% CI = 7–9%), 24% (95% CI = 21–26%), and 13% (95% CI = 11–15%) (p < 0.001). Prevalence of depression ranged from 3% in patients with lung cancer to 31% in patients with cancer of the digestive tract, on the basis of diagnostic interviews. Prevalence of depression was highest during treatment 14% (95% CI = 11–17%), measured by diagnostic interviews, and 27% (95% CI = 25–30%), measured by self-report instruments. In the first year after diagnosis, prevalence of depression measured with diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments were 9% (95% CI = 7–11%) and 21% (95% CI = 19–24%), respectively, and they were 8% (95% CI = 5–12%) and 15% (95% CI = 13–17%) ≥ 1 year after diagnosis.ConclusionsPooled mean prevalence of depression in cancer patients ranged from 8% to 24% and differed by the type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase. Future prospective studies should disentangle whether differences in prevalence of depression are caused by differences in the type of instrument, type of cancer or treatment phase.

No abstract

Purpose A stepped care (SC) program in which an effective yet least resource-intensive treatment is delivered to patients first and followed, when necessary, by more resource-intensive treatments was found to be effective in improving distress levels of patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer. Information on the value of this program for its cost is now called for. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the SC program compared with care-as-usual (CAU) in patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer who have psychological distress. Patients and MethodsIn total, 156 patients were randomly assigned to SC or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality-of-life data during the intervention or control period and 12 months of follow-up were calculated by using Trimbos and Institute of Medical Technology Assessment Cost Questionnaire for Psychiatry, Productivity and Disease Questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimension measures and data from the hospital information system. The SC program's value for the cost was investigated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). ResultsAfter imputation of missing data, mean cumulative costs were -V3,950 (95% CI, -V8,158 to -V190) lower, and mean number of QALYs was 0.116 (95% CI, 0.005 to 0.227) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. The intervention group had a probability of 96% that cumulative QALYs were higher and cumulative costs were lower than in the control group. Four additional analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of this finding, and they found that the intervention group had a probability of 84% to 98% that cumulative QALYs were higher and a probability of 91% to 99% that costs were lower than in the control group. ConclusionSC is highly likely to be cost-effective; the number of QALYs was higher and cumulative costs were lower for SC compared with CAU.

PurposeStepped care (SC), consisting of watchful waiting, guided self-help, problem-solving therapy, and psychotherapy/medication is, compared to care-as-usual (CAU), effective in improving psychological distress. This study presents secondary analyses on subgroups of patients who might specifically benefit from watchful waiting, guided self-help, or the entire SC program.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, head and neck and lung cancer patients with distress (n = 156) were randomized to SC or CAU. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate baseline factors associated with recovery after watchful waiting and guided self-help. Potential moderators of the effectiveness of SC compared to CAU were investigated using linear mixed models.ResultsPatients without a psychiatric disorder, with better psychological outcomes (HADS: all scales) and better health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (EORTC QLQ-C30/H&N35: global QOL, all functioning, and several symptom domains) were more likely to recover after watchful waiting. Patients with better scores on distress, emotional functioning, and dyspnea were more likely to recover after guided self-help. Sex, time since treatment, anxiety or depressive disorder diagnosis, symptoms of anxiety, symptoms of depression, speech problems, and feeling ill at baseline moderated the efficacy of SC compared to CAU.ConclusionsPatients with distress but who are relatively doing well otherwise, benefit most from watchful waiting and guided self-help. The entire SC program is more effective in women, patients in the first year after treatment, patients with a higher level of distress or anxiety or depressive disorder, patients who are feeling ill, and patients with less speech problems.TrialNTR1868.