No abstract

The preliminary results establish that early fears and distress within individuals govern later reports on these same attributes, but that there is some weak evidence of influence from one attribute to another within and across individuals in the dyad. Future prospective dyadic research is warranted to ascertain the level of these fears over an extended time and their relationship to patient and carer adaptation. Intervention may be needed to reduce this disease concern to a manageable level at an early stage of the illness trajectory.

Four main gaps in knowledge relating to the practical and physical problems associated with cancer survivorship have been identified. These are key symptoms, unmet supportive care needs, employment and older cancer survivors, and should be addressed by future research and systematic literature reviews. Work is also needed to address the nomenclature of survivorship and to improve the methodology of research into cancer survivors (including standardised measures, theoretical frameworks, longitudinal design, inclusion of older survivors and age-matched controls for comparison). The review highlighted the need for better research within the identified areas in order to improve the experiences of cancer survivors.

Background:Patients who have completed initial cancer treatment (cancer survivors) have been relatively neglected. We need data to help us better understand the needs of this group and to underpin evidence-based service development.Methods:Scoping reviews of research published in the last two decades focussing on the problems faced by cancer survivors, and the effectiveness of interventions for these problems were undertaken. The aim was to identify what we know, what we do not know and opportunities where research could provide new information. We searched for, retrieved and rapidly appraised systematic reviews sourced from the most common electronic databases supplemented by more recently published individual studies.Results:The research evidence is surprisingly limited. We have some knowledge of the prevalence and nature of depression, pain and fatigue in cancer survivors. We know much less about cognitive and physical impairment, employment, financial well-being and relationships. Even where we have evidence, it is mostly of only moderate quality, is most often only for breast cancer and focuses almost exclusively on the early phase of survivorship. We have good evidence for the effectiveness of drug treatments for pain and moderate evidence for fatigue and depression, but not for other symptoms. Interventions based on rehabilitative and self-management approaches remain in the early stages of evaluation.Interpretation:There has been a substantial amount of research describing many of the problems experienced by the cancer survivors. This is strongest in the area of symptoms in the period soon after treatment. However, the quality of the evidence is often poor, and some topics have been little examined. We urgently need data on the natural evolution and scale of the problems of cancer survivors obtained from well-designed, large-scale cohort studies and the robust testing of interventions in clinical trials. Given the current financially constrained research funding environment, we suggest areas in which strategic investment might give findings that have the potential to make a major impact on patient well-being in a 5-year time scale.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening for depression has been recommended for patients who have medical conditions like cancer. The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is becoming widely used, but its diagnostic accuracy has not yet been tested in a cancer patient population. In this article, the authors report on the performance of the PHQ-9 as a screening instrument for major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with cancer. METHODS: Data obtained from a depression screening service for patients who were attending clinics of a Regional Cancer Centre in Edinburgh, United Kingdom were used. Patients had completed both the PHQ-9 and a 2-stage procedure to identify cases of MDD. Performance of the PHQ-9 in identifying cases of MDD was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Data were available on 4264 patients. When scored as a continuous measure, the PHQ-9 performed well with an area under the ROC curve of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.95). A cutoff score of !8 provided a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI, 89%-95%), a specificity of 81% (95% CI, 80%-82%), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 25%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99% and could be considered optimum in a screening context. The PHQ-9 did not perform as well when it was scored using an algorithm with a sensitivity of 56% (95% CI, 55%-57%), a specificity of 96% (95% CI, 95%-97%), a PPV of 52%, and an NPV of 97%. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 scored as a continuous measure with a cutoff score of !8 performed well in identifying MDD in cancer patients and should be considered as a screening instrument in this population.