BACKGROUND: Receiving a new diagnosis of breast cancer is a distressing experience that may precipitate an episode of major depressive disorder. Efficient screening methods for detecting depression in the oncology setting are needed. This study evaluated the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of the single-item Distress Thermometer (DT) for detecting depression in women newly diagnosed with Stage I-III breast cancer. METHODS: We assessed 321 patients (of 345 consecutive patients) at the time of their pre-surgical consultation at a Comprehensive Breast Cancer Program. Patients were administered the DT along with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item Depression Module (PHQ-9) as a gold standard diagnostic assessment of depression status. RESULTS: Mean DT scores (11-point scale, 0-10) were significantly higher for depressed versus non-depressed patients (8.1 versus 4.4). In ROC analyses the DT showed strong discriminatory power relative to the PHQ-9-derived diagnosis of depression, with an area under the curve of 0.87. Patient age, education, marital status and stage of disease resulted in similar operating characteristics. A score of 7 represented the optimal trade-off between sensitivity (0.81) and specificity (0.85) characteristics for detecting depression. CONCLUSIONS: The single-item DT performs satisfactorily relative to the PHQ-9 for detecting depression in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. A cutoff score of 7 on the DT possesses the optimal sensitivity and specificity characteristics. The strength of these findings suggests that a careful psychosocial evaluation should follow a positive screen.
BACKGROUND: Receiving a new diagnosis of breast cancer is a distressing experience that may precipitate an episode of major depressive disorder. Efficient screening methods for detecting depression in the oncology setting are needed. This study evaluated the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of the single-item Distress Thermometer (DT) for detecting depression in women newly diagnosed with Stage I-III breast cancer. METHODS: We assessed 321 patients (of 345 consecutive patients) at the time of their pre-surgical consultation at a Comprehensive Breast Cancer Program. Patients were administered the DT along with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item Depression Module (PHQ-9) as a gold standard diagnostic assessment of depression status. RESULTS: Mean DT scores (11-point scale, 0-10) were significantly higher for depressed versus non-depressed patients (8.1 versus 4.4). In ROC analyses the DT showed strong discriminatory power relative to the PHQ-9-derived diagnosis of depression, with an area under the curve of 0.87. Patient age, education, marital status and stage of disease resulted in similar operating characteristics. A score of 7 represented the optimal trade-off between sensitivity (0.81) and specificity (0.85) characteristics for detecting depression. CONCLUSIONS: The single-item DT performs satisfactorily relative to the PHQ-9 for detecting depression in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. A cutoff score of 7 on the DT possesses the optimal sensitivity and specificity characteristics. The strength of these findings suggests that a careful psychosocial evaluation should follow a positive screen.
Authors: Michael A Andrykowski; Janet S Carpenter; Jamie L Studts; Matthew J Cordova; Lauren L C Cunningham; Abbie Beacham; David Sloan; Daniel Kenady; Patrick McGrath Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Francisco Gil; Luigi Grassi; Luzia Travado; Michele Tomamichel; Juan Ramón Gonzalez Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-03-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R L Spitzer; J B Williams; K Kroenke; M Linzer; F V deGruy; S R Hahn; D Brody; J G Johnson Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-12-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Lorna Kwan; Annette L Stanton; Janice L Krupnick; Julia H Rowland; Beth E Meyerowitz; Julienne E Bower; Thomas R Belin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Danielle B Tometich; Catherine E Mosher; Adam T Hirsh; Kevin L Rand; Shelley A Johns; Marianne S Matthias; Samantha D Outcalt; Bryan P Schneider; Lida Mina; Anna Maria V Storniolo; Erin V Newton; Kathy D Miller Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Soo Jin Yoon; Kyong-Mee Chung; Jung Woo Han; Seung Min Hahn; Sun Hee Kim; Chuhl Joo Lyu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sophia K Smith; Jonathan D O'Donnell; Amy P Abernethy; Kristin MacDermott; Tina Staley; Gregory P Samsa Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Xuelei Ma; Jing Zhang; Wuning Zhong; Chi Shu; Fengtian Wang; Jianing Wen; Min Zhou; Yaxiong Sang; Yu Jiang; Lei Liu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Karine Yenokyan; Yi Ren; Benjamin A Goldstein; Ilona Stashko; Steve Power; Madeline J Thornton; P Kelly Marcom; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lisa VanHoose; Lora L Black; Kimberly Doty; Dory Sabata; Philip Twumasi-Ankrah; Sarah Taylor; Rhonda Johnson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 3.603