OBJECTIVE: Distress screening guidelines call for rapid screening for emotional distress at the time of cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the distress thermometer's (DT) ability to screen in patients in treatment for advanced cancer who may be depressed. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data collected from patients within 30 days of diagnosis with advanced cancer, this study used ROC analysis to determine the optimal-cutoff point of the distress thermometer (DT) for screening for depression as measured by the physician health questionnaire (PHQ)-9; inter-test reliability analysis to compare the DT with the PHQ-2 for screening in possible cases of depression, and multivariate analysis to examine associations among the DT emotional problem list (EPL) items with cases of depression. RESULTS: The average age of the 123 patients in the study was 59.9 (12.9) years. Seventy (56.9%) were female. All had Stage 3 or 4 cancers (40% gastrointestinal, 19% gynecologic, 20% head and neck, 21% lung). The mean DT score was 4 (2.7)/10; and 56 (43%) were depressed as measured by the PHQ-9 ≥ 5. The optimal DT cut-off score to screen in possible cases of depression was ≥ 2/10, with a sensitivity of .96, compared to a sensitivity of .32 of the PHQ-2 ≥ 2. Correlation coefficients for the DT ≥ 2 and the PHQ-2 with the PHQ-9 ≥ 5 were 0.4 and -0.2, respectively. EPL items associated with cases of depression were Depression (OR = 0.15, 0.02-0.85) and Sadness (OR = 0.21, 0.06-0.72). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The optimal DT threshold for identifying possible cases of depression at the time of diagnosis is ≥ 2; this threshold is more sensitive than the PHQ-2 ≥ 2. EPL items may be used with the DT score to triage patients for evaluation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Distress screening guidelines call for rapid screening for emotional distress at the time of cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the distress thermometer's (DT) ability to screen in patients in treatment for advanced cancer who may be depressed. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data collected from patients within 30 days of diagnosis with advanced cancer, this study used ROC analysis to determine the optimal-cutoff point of the distress thermometer (DT) for screening for depression as measured by the physician health questionnaire (PHQ)-9; inter-test reliability analysis to compare the DT with the PHQ-2 for screening in possible cases of depression, and multivariate analysis to examine associations among the DT emotional problem list (EPL) items with cases of depression. RESULTS: The average age of the 123 patients in the study was 59.9 (12.9) years. Seventy (56.9%) were female. All had Stage 3 or 4 cancers (40% gastrointestinal, 19% gynecologic, 20% head and neck, 21% lung). The mean DT score was 4 (2.7)/10; and 56 (43%) were depressed as measured by the PHQ-9 ≥ 5. The optimal DT cut-off score to screen in possible cases of depression was ≥ 2/10, with a sensitivity of .96, compared to a sensitivity of .32 of the PHQ-2 ≥ 2. Correlation coefficients for the DT ≥ 2 and the PHQ-2 with the PHQ-9 ≥ 5 were 0.4 and -0.2, respectively. EPL items associated with cases of depression were Depression (OR = 0.15, 0.02-0.85) and Sadness (OR = 0.21, 0.06-0.72). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The optimal DT threshold for identifying possible cases of depression at the time of diagnosis is ≥ 2; this threshold is more sensitive than the PHQ-2 ≥ 2. EPL items may be used with the DT score to triage patients for evaluation.
Authors: Dina M Randazzo; Frances McSherry; James E Herndon; Mary Lou Affronti; Eric S Lipp; Charlene Flahiff; Elizabeth Miller; Sarah Woodring; Maria Freeman; Patrick Healy; Janet Minchew; Susan Boulton; Annick Desjardins; Gordana Vlahovic; Henry S Friedman; Stephen Keir; Katherine B Peters Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Stuart L Goldberg; Dhakshila Paramanathan; Raya Khoury; Sharmi Patel; Dayo Jagun; Srikesh Arunajadai; Victoria DeVincenzo; Ruth Pe Benito; Brooke Gruman; Sukhi Kaur; Scott Paddock; Andrew D Norden; Eric V Schultz; John Hervey; Terrill Jordan; Andre Goy; Andrew L Pecora Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-09-28
Authors: Mark Lazenby; Elizabeth Ercolano; Marcia Grant; Jimmie C Holland; Paul B Jacobsen; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Heidi Mason; Mary Beth DeRubeis; Nancy Burke; Melissa Shannon; Danielle Karsies; Gregory Wolf; Avi Eisbruch; Francis Worden Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-10
Authors: Junetae Kim; Sanghee Lim; Yul Ha Min; Yong-Wook Shin; Byungtae Lee; Guiyun Sohn; Kyung Hae Jung; Jae-Ho Lee; Byung Ho Son; Sei Hyun Ahn; Soo-Yong Shin; Jong Won Lee Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 5.428