Timothy A Newby1, Julie N Graff1,2, Linda K Ganzini3,4, Marian S McDonagh5. 1. Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 2. Division of Hospital & Specialty Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA. 4. Departments of Psychiatry and Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University - OHSU, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer patients are at increased risk of depression yet there is no standard intervention to address this. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the efficacy of interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Searches for studies were conducted in four databases and by hand. Randomized controlled trials of any intervention relative to control for depression in prostate cancer patients at any stage of their cancer treatment were included. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies that randomized men with prostate cancer to either an intervention meant to improve some aspect of quality of life or control and reported depressive symptoms scores before and after the intervention or control condition. Two of these were not used in our meta-analysis either for concerns about quality or for lack of depression scores. The interventions identified in the remaining nine articles were exercise (four), information (three), psychotherapy or peer support (three), massage therapy (one), and medication (one). Several publications included more than one type of intervention. A meta-analysis of all studies showed that an intervention of some types significantly improved depressive symptom scores relative to the control condition (improvement in depression score by -0.86 unit (95% CI: -1.42, -0.31)). Isolating the peer support/psychotherapy studies also showed significant improvement (improvement in depression score by -1.09 unit (95% CI: -2.05, -0.13)). CONCLUSION: Treatments to improve depressive symptoms in men with prostate cancer may be effective, with the best evidence supporting the use of peer support/psychotherapy.
OBJECTIVE:Prostate cancerpatients are at increased risk of depression yet there is no standard intervention to address this. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the efficacy of interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Searches for studies were conducted in four databases and by hand. Randomized controlled trials of any intervention relative to control for depression in prostate cancerpatients at any stage of their cancer treatment were included. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies that randomized men with prostate cancer to either an intervention meant to improve some aspect of quality of life or control and reported depressive symptoms scores before and after the intervention or control condition. Two of these were not used in our meta-analysis either for concerns about quality or for lack of depression scores. The interventions identified in the remaining nine articles were exercise (four), information (three), psychotherapy or peer support (three), massage therapy (one), and medication (one). Several publications included more than one type of intervention. A meta-analysis of all studies showed that an intervention of some types significantly improved depressive symptom scores relative to the control condition (improvement in depression score by -0.86 unit (95% CI: -1.42, -0.31)). Isolating the peer support/psychotherapy studies also showed significant improvement (improvement in depression score by -1.09 unit (95% CI: -2.05, -0.13)). CONCLUSION: Treatments to improve depressive symptoms in men with prostate cancer may be effective, with the best evidence supporting the use of peer support/psychotherapy.
Authors: Saira Khan; Kenneth G Nepple; Adam S Kibel; Gurdarshan Sandhu; Dorina Kallogjeri; Seth Strope; Robert Grubb; Kathleen Y Wolin; Siobhan Sutcliffe Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: A E Bennett; L O'Neill; D Connolly; E M Guinan; L Boland; S L Doyle; J O'Sullivan; J V Reynolds; J Hussey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: C Grégoire; H Nicolas; I Bragard; F Delevallez; I Merckaert; D Razavi; D Waltregny; M-E Faymonville; A Vanhaudenhuyse Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Sarah E P Munce; Susan Jaglal; Monika Kastner; Michelle L A Nelson; Nancy M Salbach; John Shepherd; Shane N Sweet; Ruth Wilcock; Carla Thoms; Mark T Bayley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Frances J Drummond; Eamonn O'Leary; Anna Gavin; Heather Kinnear; Linda Sharp Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.359