Anxiety disorders in cancer patients: Their nature, associations, and relation to quality of life
ABSTRACT We aimed to estimate the prevalence and types of anxiety disorders diagnosed according to standardized criteria in cancer patients, to compare screening tools in detecting them, and to examine their demographic, oncologic, and psychosocial associations.
In this cross-sectional observational study of 178 subjects with lymphoma, renal cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, or plasma cell dyscrasia, we related responses to questionnaires (administered by computer touch-screen) measuring psychological symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and social support to standardized psychiatric interviews and cancer management.
Forty-eight percent of subjects reported sufficient anxiety for anxiety disorder to be considered. At subsequent diagnostic interview, 18% fulfilled International Classification of Disorders, 10th Revision criteria for anxiety disorder, including 6% of patients who reported low levels of anxiety by questionnaire. When subjects reported anxiety by questionnaire, if disruptive somatic anxiety was present, this increased the probability of diagnosable anxiety disorder from.31 to.7. The most accurate screening questionnaires were the trait scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. Female sex and negative aspects of social support were associated with anxiety disorder in multivariate analyses. Anxiety disorder was independently associated with a deficit in QOL, particularly insomnia.
Anxiety symptoms are common in cancer patients. Screening by questionnaire seems to assess anxiety symptoms adequately but discriminates abnormal anxiety inadequately. To improve this, we may need to use criteria such as disruption from anxiety, as illustrated by the impact of anxiety disorders on QOL. There seem to be few oncologic variables that could target screening for anxiety disorders.
SourceAvailable from: Naoki Nakaya[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although various factors thought to be correlated with anxiety in cancer patients, relative importance of each factors were unknown. We tested our hypothesis that personality traits and coping styles explain anxiety in lung cancer patients to a greater extent than other factors. A total of 1334 consecutively recruited lung cancer patients were selected, and data on cancer-related variables, demographic characteristics, health behaviors, physical symptoms and psychological factors consisting of personality traits and coping styles were obtained. The participants were divided into groups with or without a significant anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety, and a binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors correlated with significant anxiety using a multivariate model. Among the recruited patients, 440 (33.0%) had significant anxiety. The binary logistic regression analysis revealed a coefficient of determination (overall R(2)) of 39.0%, and the explanation for psychological factors was much higher (30.7%) than those for cancer-related variables (1.1%), demographic characteristics (2.1%), health behaviors (0.8%) and physical symptoms (4.3%). Four specific factors remained significant in a multivariate model. A neurotic personality trait, a coping style of helplessness/hopelessness, and a female sex were positively correlated with significant anxiety, while a coping style of fatalism was negatively correlated. Our hypothesis was supported, and anxiety was strongly linked with personality trait and coping style. As a clinical implication, the use of screening instruments to identify these factors and intervention for psychological crisis may be needed. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: email@example.com.Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 03/2015; 45(5). DOI:10.1093/jjco/hyv024 · 1.75 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Psychological distress occurs frequently in patients with cancer. Psychological distress includes mild and severe forms of both anxious and depressive mood states. Literature indicates that effective management of psychological distress seems to require targeted selection of patients (T), followed by enhanced care (E), and the application of evidence based interventions. Besides, it is hypothesized that delivering care according to the stepped care (S) approach results in an affordable program. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the (cost)-effectiveness of the TES program compared to usual care in reducing psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study is designed as a cluster randomized trial with 2 treatment arms: TES program for screening and treatment of psychological distress versus usual care. Sixteen hospitals participate in this study, recruiting patients with mCRC. Outcomes are evaluated at the beginning of chemotherapy and after 3, 10, 24, and 48 weeks. Primary outcome is the difference in treatment effect over time in psychological distress, assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, patient evaluation of care, recognition and management of psychological distress, and societal costs. We created optimal conditions for an effective screening and treatment program for psychological distress in patients with mCRC. This involves targeted selection of patients, followed by enhanced and stepped care. Our approach will be thoroughly evaluated in this study. We expect that our results will contribute to the continuing debate on the (cost-) effectiveness of screening for and treatment of psychological distress in patients with cancer. This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR4034.BMC Cancer 04/2015; 15(1):302. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1313-y · 3.32 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cancer patients experience anxiety and depression after diagnosis and during treatment. A wide range of psychological interventions have been proposed to alleviate distress, but the evidence about the perioperative effectiveness of such interventions is not clear. This systematic review examined the effect of preoperative psychological interventions or prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for cancer. A systematic review of the published data was performed using Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo for the period from 1946 to February 2014. A total of 951 publications (case series, single case reports, and reviews) were found. Only seven of these studies included patients undergoing an operation for cancer and a preoperative psychological intervention. Six of the seven studies were randomized controlled trials. Four were conducted with patients who had breast cancer (n = 356). The other studies included patients with gynecologic cancer (n = 30), colorectal cancer (n = 60), and prostate cancer (n = 159). Assessment of the studies showed four to be of good quality, two to be of moderate quality, and one to be of poor quality. Interventions did not affect traditional surgical outcomes (e.g., length of hospital stay, complications, analgesia use, or mortality) but positively affected patients' immunologic function. However, psychological interventions appeared to have an impact on patients' reported outcome measures including psychological outcomes, quality of life, and somatic symptoms. Available data suggested that preoperative psychological prehabilitation may have a role for cancer patients undergoing surgery. Further evidence is needed to evaluate its role.Annals of Surgical Oncology 04/2015; DOI:10.1245/s10434-015-4550-z · 3.94 Impact Factor