This study provides further support for the efficacy of IMCP as a treatment for psychological and existential/spiritual distress in patients with advanced cancer. Significant treatment effects (small to moderate effect sizes) were observed in comparison with usual care, and somewhat more modest differences in improvement (small effect sizes) were observed in comparison with SP. Thus, the benefits of meaning-centered psychotherapy appear to be unique to the intervention and highlight the importance of addressing existential issues with patients approaching the end of life. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Purpose Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5,658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met inclusion criteria. Results Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21). Conclusions The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.

Aims To establish preliminary evidence for the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of an abbreviated version of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy tailored to the needs of palliative care patients in the final weeks or months of life. Background Surprisingly, few mental health interventions have specifically targeted the psychological needs of palliative care patients, when physical comfort seems to take precedence over mental health and emotional needs. Yet the need for mental health services targeting these patients is clear, as one in three palliative care patients experience clinically significant depression and an equal proportion experience clinically significant anxiety. Design This pilot study used an open-label design to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived utility of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy–palliative care, a brief intervention that focuses on enhancing meaning at the end of life. Setting/participants A total of 12 patients admitted to a palliative care hospital for supportive care consented to participate in the study. Results Of the 11 patients that began treatment (one patient died before the first session), 8 completed the three-session intervention. Patients expressed positive feedback about the structure, focus, and length of the intervention, but varied in precisely which elements they found most helpful. Conclusion An abbreviated version of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy tailored to the needs of palliative care patients (Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy–palliative care) appears to be feasible, acceptable, and has the potential to help patients better cope with the challenges inherent in confronting death and dying. Further research, with larger and more representative samples, is needed in order to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

Objective To examine the ability of three popular self-report measures of depression to assess depression in a geriatric cancer setting. Method Cancer patients 70 years or older and on active treatment completed the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale—Revised, and were interviewed using the depression module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM disorders (SCID) as the ‘gold standard.’ Analyses included calculating internal consistency, ROC curves, and the sensitivity and specificity to detect major depression (MDD) or minor depression (i.e. subthreshold depression). Results In a sample of 201 cancer patients (85% White; 64% completed college degree or higher), all three of the self-report measures produced adequate internal consistency and predicted depression greater than chance. However, the published cutoff scores for detecting MDD produced inadequate sensitivity, suggesting these scores will miss as many as 33%–83% of geriatric cancer patients who are depressed. Revised cutoff scores were lower than published cutoff scores. Conclusion Although these measures produced good internal consistency and were better than chance at predicting depression in a geriatric cancer sample, the published cutoff scores for these measures did not perform well in predicting MDD nor minor depression. Of the three measures, the CES-D appeared to have the most utility. This data suggests that these popular screening measures may be inadequate for reliably identifying depression in a geriatric cancer population. Researchers and clinicians, therefore, should use caution when selecting depression measures for geriatric cancer patients and consider using the lower cut-off scores presented here.