ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in cancer patients assessed by diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments, and to study differences in prevalence between type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase.MethodsA literature search was conducted in four databases to select studies on the prevalence of depression among adult cancer patients during or after treatment. A total of 211 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled mean prevalence of depression was calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.ResultsHospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—depression subscale (HADS-D) ≥ 8, HADS-D ≥11, Center for Epidemiologic Studies ≥ 16, and (semi-)structured diagnostic interviews were used to define depression in 66, 53, 35 and 49 studies, respectively. Respective mean prevalence of depression was 17% (95% CI = 16–19%), 8% (95% CI = 7–9%), 24% (95% CI = 21–26%), and 13% (95% CI = 11–15%) (p < 0.001). Prevalence of depression ranged from 3% in patients with lung cancer to 31% in patients with cancer of the digestive tract, on the basis of diagnostic interviews. Prevalence of depression was highest during treatment 14% (95% CI = 11–17%), measured by diagnostic interviews, and 27% (95% CI = 25–30%), measured by self-report instruments. In the first year after diagnosis, prevalence of depression measured with diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments were 9% (95% CI = 7–11%) and 21% (95% CI = 19–24%), respectively, and they were 8% (95% CI = 5–12%) and 15% (95% CI = 13–17%) ≥ 1 year after diagnosis.ConclusionsPooled mean prevalence of depression in cancer patients ranged from 8% to 24% and differed by the type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase. Future prospective studies should disentangle whether differences in prevalence of depression are caused by differences in the type of instrument, type of cancer or treatment phase.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention combining Life Review Therapy (LRT) and Memory Specificity Training (MST) (LRT-MST) to improve ego-integrity and despair among cancer patients in palliative care.MethodsIn this multicentre randomized controlled trial, cancer patients in palliative care were randomized to the intervention group (LRT-MST; n = 55) or waiting-list control group (n = 52). LRT-MST is a 4-session home-based psychological intervention that aims to retrieve specific positive memories, to re-evaluate life events and to reconstruct the story of a patient’s life, including the diagnosis of incurable cancer. Outcome measures were ego-integrity and despair (NEIS), psychological distress, anxiety and depression (HADS), quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL), and specificity of the autobiographical memory (AMT). NEIS, HADS and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL were assessed at baseline (T0), 1 month later (post-treatment; T1), and at 1 month follow-up (T2). AMT was assessed at T0 and T1. Linear mixed models (intention to treat) were used to assess group differences in changes over time. Independent samples t-tests were used to assess group differences at T0, T1, and T2, and effect sizes (ES) were calculated at T1 and T2.ResultsThe course of ego-integrity (not despair) improved significantly over time (p = .007) in the intervention group compared to the waiting-list control group, with moderate, but insignificant, effect sizes at T1 (ES = .42) and T2 (ES = .48). Compliance rate was 69% and total dropout rate was 28%, both primarily related to disease progression and death.ConclusionsLRT-MST seems effective among cancer patients in palliative care to improve the course of ego-integrity.

Purpose Investigate whether Life Review Therapy and Memory Specificity Training (LRT-MST) targeting incurably ill cancer patients may also have a beneficial effect on caregiving burden, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and posttraumatic growth of the informal caregivers. Methods Data was collected in the context of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (secondary analyses) on the effect of LRT-MST among incurably cancer patients. Informal caregivers of participating patients were asked to complete outcome measures at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and 1-month follow-up (T2): caregiver burden (caregivers reaction assessment scale (CRA)), symptoms of anxiety and depression (hospital anxiety and depression scale), and posttraumatic growth (posttraumatic growth inventory). Linear mixed models (intention to treat) were used to assess group differences in changes over time. Effect size and independent samples t tests were used to assess group differences at T1 and T2. Results In total, 64 caregivers participated. At baseline, 56% of the caregivers experienced anxiety and 30% depression. No significant effect was found on these symptoms nor on posttraumatic growth or most aspects of caregiver burden. There was a significant effect of LRT-MST on the course of self-esteem (subscale CRA) (p = 0.013). Effect size was moderate postintervention (ES = − 0.38, p = 0.23) and at 3-month follow-up (ES = 0.53, p = 0.083). Conclusions Many caregivers of incurably ill cancer patients experience symptoms of anxiety and depression. LRT-MST does not improve symptoms of depression and anxiety, negative aspects of caregiver burden, or posttraumatic growth. LRT-MST may have a protective effect on self-esteem of informal caregivers (positive aspect of caregiver burden). Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 2256), registered on 23-3-2010.

PurposeTo evaluate psychometric characteristics of a questionnaire (the Northwestern Ego-integrity Scale (NEIS)) on ego-integrity (the experience of wholeness and meaning in life, even in spite of negative experiences) and despair (the experience of regret about the life one has led, and feelings of sadness, failure and hopelessness) among cancer patients.MethodsCancer patients (n = 164) completed patient reported outcome measures on ego-integrity and despair (NEIS), psychological distress, anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 (cancer survivors, n = 57) or EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL (advanced cancer patients, n = 107)). Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to assess construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Convergent validity was tested based on a priori defined hypotheses: a higher level of ego-integrity was expected to be related to a higher level of quality of life, and lower levels of distress, depression and anxiety; a higher level of despair was expected to be related to a lower level of quality of life, and higher levels of distress, depression and anxiety.ResultsThe majority of all items (94.5%) of the NEIS were completed by patients and single item missing rate was below 2%. The two subscales, labeled as Ego-integrity (5 items) and Despair (4 items) had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha .72 and .61, respectively). The Ego-integrity subscale was not significantly associated with quality of life, distress, anxiety, or depression. The Despair subscale correlated significantly (p <.001) with quality of life (r = -.29), distress (r = .44), anxiety (r = .47) and depression (r = .32).ConclusionThe NEIS has good psychometric characteristics to assess ego-integrity and despair among cancer patients.

Purpose Life review therapy combined with memory specificity training (LRT-MST) is effective in cancer patients in palliative care, but the effect size is moderate. The aim of this qualitative study was to obtain more in-depth knowledge on motivation to start with LRT-MST, experiences with LRT-MST, and perceived outcomes of LRT-MST. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 cancer patients in palliative care who participated in a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of LRT-MST. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by means of thematic analysis independently by two coders and coded into key issues and themes. Results Patients started LRT-MST for intrinsic (e.g., potential benefit for personal well-being) and extrinsic reasons (e.g., potential benefit for future patients). Patients indicated mainly positive experiences with the intervention. They appreciated sharing their memories and regaining memories with a specific focus on retrieving positive memories. Some disliked the fact that negative memories could not be addressed. Most patients perceived positive outcomes of the intervention belonging to the overarching themes Bego-integrity^and Bpsychological well-being^in the here and now, as well as in the nearby future (including end-of-life). Conclusions LRT-MST is of added value as a psychological intervention in palliative care. This study provided in-depth insight into reasons to start the intervention, and the experiences and outcomes, which are important to further tailor LRT-MST and for development or improvement of other psychological interventions targeting cancer patients in palliative care.