Lynne I Wagner1, Stephanie L Pugh2, William Small3, Jeffrey Kirshner4, Kulbir Sidhu5, Martin J Bury6, Albert S DeNittis7, Tracy E Alpert4, Binh Tran8, Beatrice F Bloom9, Julie Mai10, Alexander Yeh11, Kalika Sarma12, Mark Becker13, Jennifer James2, Deborah Watkins Bruner14. 1. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York (Community Clinical Oncology Program), East Syracuse, New York. 5. Southeast Cancer Control Consortium (Community Clinical Oncology Program), Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 6. Grand Rapids Clinical Oncology Program, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 7. Main Line Health (Community Clinical Oncology Program), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium (Community Clinical Oncology Program), South Bend, Indiana. 9. North Shore University Hospital (Community Clinical Oncology Program), Manhasset, New York. 10. Mercy Hospital St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. 11. St. Vincent Anderson Regional Hospital, Anderson, Indiana. 12. Carle Cancer Center (Community Clinical Oncology Program), Urbana, Illinois. 13. Columbus Community Clinical Oncology Program, Columbus, Ohio. 14. Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brief tools are needed to screen oncology outpatients for depressive symptoms. METHODS: Patients starting radiotherapy for the first diagnosis of any tumor completed distress screening tools, including the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) (25-item version). Patients exceeding validated cutoff scores and a systematic sample of patients whose screening was negative completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three patients from 35 community-based radiation oncology sites and 2 academic radiation oncology sites were recruited. Sixty-six percent of the 455 eligible patients (n = 299) were women, and the eligible patients had breast (45%), gastrointestinal (11%), lung (10%), gynecologic (6%), or other cancers (27%). Seventy-five (16.5%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. Forty-two of these patients completed the SCID. Another 37 patients whose screening was negative completed the SCID. Among the 79 patients completing the SCID, 8 (10.1%) met the criteria for major depression, 2 (2.5%) met the criteria for dysthymia, and 6 (7.6%) met the criteria for an adjustment disorder. The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders with a cutoff score of ≥3 (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [AUC], 0.83) and was comparable to the PHQ-9 ( > 9; AUC = 0.85). The NCCN-DT did not detect depression (AUC = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders, which were equivalent to the PHQ-9 and superior to the NCCN-DT. These findings support using the PHQ-2 to identify patients in need of further assessment for depression, which has a low prevalence but is a clinically significant comorbidity. These findings could inform the implementation of distress screening accreditation standards. Cancer 2017;123:485-493.
BACKGROUND: Brief tools are needed to screen oncology outpatients for depressive symptoms. METHODS:Patients starting radiotherapy for the first diagnosis of any tumor completed distress screening tools, including the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) (25-item version). Patients exceeding validated cutoff scores and a systematic sample of patients whose screening was negative completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three patients from 35 community-based radiation oncology sites and 2 academic radiation oncology sites were recruited. Sixty-six percent of the 455 eligible patients (n = 299) were women, and the eligible patients had breast (45%), gastrointestinal (11%), lung (10%), gynecologic (6%), or other cancers (27%). Seventy-five (16.5%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. Forty-two of these patients completed the SCID. Another 37 patients whose screening was negative completed the SCID. Among the 79 patients completing the SCID, 8 (10.1%) met the criteria for major depression, 2 (2.5%) met the criteria for dysthymia, and 6 (7.6%) met the criteria for an adjustment disorder. The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders with a cutoff score of ≥3 (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [AUC], 0.83) and was comparable to the PHQ-9 ( > 9; AUC = 0.85). The NCCN-DT did not detect depression (AUC = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders, which were equivalent to the PHQ-9 and superior to the NCCN-DT. These findings support using the PHQ-2 to identify patients in need of further assessment for depression, which has a low prevalence but is a clinically significant comorbidity. These findings could inform the implementation of distress screening accreditation standards. Cancer 2017;123:485-493.
Authors: Yan Leykin; Seema M Thekdi; Dianne M Shumay; Ricardo F Muñoz; Michelle Riba; Laura B Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Michelle B Riba; Kristine A Donovan; Barbara Andersen; IIana Braun; William S Breitbart; Benjamin W Brewer; Luke O Buchmann; Matthew M Clark; Molly Collins; Cheyenne Corbett; Stewart Fleishman; Sofia Garcia; Donna B Greenberg; Rev George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Chao-Hui Huang; Robin Lally; Sara Martin; Lisa McGuffey; William Mitchell; Laura J Morrison; Megan Pailler; Oxana Palesh; Francine Parnes; Janice P Pazar; Laurel Ralston; Jaroslava Salman; Moreen M Shannon-Dudley; Alan D Valentine; Nicole R McMillian; Susan D Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Deborah W Bruner; Stephanie L Pugh; W Robert Lee; William A Hall; James J Dignam; Daniel Low; Gregory P Swanson; Amit B Shah; Shawn Malone; Jeff M Michalski; Ian S Dayes; Samantha A Seaward; Paul L Nguyen; Thomas M Pisansky; Yuhchyau Chen; Howard M Sandler; Benjamin Movsas Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: William Small; Stephanie L Pugh; Lynne I Wagner; Jeffrey Kirshner; Kulbir Sidhu; Martin J Bury; Albert S DeNittis; Tracy E Alpert; Binh Tran; Beatrice F Bloom; Julie Mai; Deborah Watkins Bruner Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-02-07 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Julienne E Bower; Ann H Partridge; Antonio C Wolff; Elissa D Thorner; Hadine Joffe; Michael R Irwin; Laura Petersen; Catherine M Crespi Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-02-08
Authors: M Kyranou; C Varvara; M Papathanasiou; Ι Diakogiannis; K Zafeiropoulos; M Apostolidis; C Papandreou; M Syngelakis Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 3.630