PURPOSE: Depression occurs among an estimated 15% of cancer patients (range, 1-77.5%). Our main objective was to identify the frequency of reported depression by using the Brief Edinburgh Depression Scale (BEDS) among cancer outpatients. Our secondary objective was to identify associated symptoms of cancer using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and to evaluate the screening performance of depression between ESAS and BEDS. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study conducted, we used the ESAS to collect information on nine symptoms: pain, fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, shortness of breath, lack of appetite, and feeling of well-being (each rated from 0 to 10). The BEDS was used to assess for "probable depression" (score >6). Data were analyzed using a parametric and nonparametric test. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients completed the study. The prevalence of probable depression was 43/146 (29%). Probable depression was associated with increased fatigue (p = 0.008), depression (p < 0.0001), anxiety (p < 0.0001), shortness of breath (p = 0.01), and decreased feeling of well-being (p < 0.001). Among patients with probable depression, 42 (98%) patients were not using antidepressants. Regarding the sensitivity and the specificity, we determined that the optimal cutoff for using the ESAS as a depression screening tool was ≥ 2. CONCLUSION: We found significant associations between probable depression as determined with the BEDS and five symptoms as detected with the ESAS. The vast majority of patients with probable depression were not receiving pharmacological treatment. Depression should be suspected in patients with higher symptom distress as for any one of these 5 ESAS items.
PURPOSE:Depression occurs among an estimated 15% of cancerpatients (range, 1-77.5%). Our main objective was to identify the frequency of reported depression by using the Brief Edinburgh Depression Scale (BEDS) among cancer outpatients. Our secondary objective was to identify associated symptoms of cancer using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and to evaluate the screening performance of depression between ESAS and BEDS. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study conducted, we used the ESAS to collect information on nine symptoms: pain, fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, shortness of breath, lack of appetite, and feeling of well-being (each rated from 0 to 10). The BEDS was used to assess for "probable depression" (score >6). Data were analyzed using a parametric and nonparametric test. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients completed the study. The prevalence of probable depression was 43/146 (29%). Probable depression was associated with increased fatigue (p = 0.008), depression (p < 0.0001), anxiety (p < 0.0001), shortness of breath (p = 0.01), and decreased feeling of well-being (p < 0.001). Among patients with probable depression, 42 (98%) patients were not using antidepressants. Regarding the sensitivity and the specificity, we determined that the optimal cutoff for using the ESAS as a depression screening tool was ≥ 2. CONCLUSION: We found significant associations between probable depression as determined with the BEDS and five symptoms as detected with the ESAS. The vast majority of patients with probable depression were not receiving pharmacological treatment. Depression should be suspected in patients with higher symptom distress as for any one of these 5 ESAS items.
Authors: Ernesto Vignaroli; Ellen A Pace; Jie Willey; J Lynn Palmer; Tao Zhang; Eduardo Bruera Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Paul B Jacobsen; David Shibata; Erin M Siegel; Ji-Hyun Lee; William J Fulp; Carlos Alemany; Guillermo Abesada-Terk; Richard Brown; Thomas Cartwright; Douglas Faig; George Kim; Richard Levine; Merry-Jennifer Markham; Fred Schreiber; Philip Sharp; Mokenge Malafa Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Gary Rodin; Nancy Lloyd; Mark Katz; Esther Green; Jean A Mackay; Rebecca K S Wong Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-10-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Julie Hallet; Laura E Davis; Elie Isenberg-Grzeda; Alyson L Mahar; Haoyu Zhao; Victoria Zuk; Lesley Moody; Natalie G Coburn Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-02-26
Authors: Nicola M Gray; Susan J Hall; Susan Browne; Marie Johnston; Amanda J Lee; Una Macleod; Elizabeth D Mitchell; Leslie Samuel; Neil C Campbell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sriram Yennurajalingam; Supakarn Tayjasanant; Dave Balachandran; Nikhil S Padhye; Janet L Williams; Diane D Liu; Susan Frisbee-Hume; Eduardo Bruera Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Carla I Ripamonti; Elena Bandieri; Maria Adelaide Pessi; Alice Maruelli; Loredana Buonaccorso; Guido Miccinesi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kathryn A Fisher; Hsien Seow; Kevin Brazil; Shannon Freeman; Trevor Frise Smith; Dawn M Guthrie Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Peter A S Johnstone; Jae Lee; Jun-Min Zhou; Zhenjun Ma; Diane Portman; Heather Jim; Hsiang-Hsuan Michael Yu Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 4.452