PurposeIndividuals with advanced cancer experience substantial distress in response to disease burden and impending mortality. Managing Cancer And Living Meaningfully (CALM) is a novel, brief, manualized psychotherapeutic intervention intended to treat and prevent depression and end-of-life distress in patients with advanced cancer. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare CALM with usual care (UC) in this population.MethodsPatients with advanced cancer were recruited from outpatient oncology clinics at a comprehensive cancer center into an unblinded randomized controlled trial. Permuted block randomization stratified by Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression score allocated participants to CALM plus UC or to UC alone. Assessments of depressive symptoms (primary outcome), death-related distress, and other secondary outcomes were conducted at baseline, 3 months (primary end point), and 6 months (trial end point). Analyses were by intention to treat. Analysis of covariance was used to test for outcome differences between groups at follow-up, controlling for baseline. Mixed-model results are reported.ResultsParticipants (n = 305) were recruited between February 3, 2012, and March 4, 2016, and randomly assigned to CALM (n = 151) or UC (n = 154). CALM participants reported less-severe depressive symptoms than UC participants at 3 months (Δ = 1.09; P = .04; Cohen’s d = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.04 to 2.13) and at 6 months (Δ = 1.29; P = .02; d = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.24 to 2.35). Significant findings for greater end-of-life preparation at 6 months also favored CALM versus UC. No adverse effects were identified.ConclusionFindings suggest that CALM is an effective intervention that provides a systematic approach to alleviating depressive symptoms in patients with advanced cancer and addresses the predictable challenges these patients face.

CALM may be a feasible intervention to benefit patients with advanced cancer. The results are encouraging, despite attrition and small effect sizes, and support further study.

The overall quality of death was rated positively for the majority of these cancer patients. Ratings were highest for home deaths perhaps because they are associated with fewer complications and/or a more extensive support network. For a substantial minority, symptom control and death-related distress at the end of life were problematic, highlighting areas for intervention.