-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Interventions for Elevated Depressive Symptoms in Adults Diagnosed With Cancer.txt
4466 lines (3819 loc) · 390 KB
/
Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Interventions for Elevated Depressive Symptoms in Adults Diagnosed With Cancer.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/13/990.full
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="en"
lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<title>Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Interventions for Elevated Depressive Symptoms in Adults Diagnosed With Cancer </title>
<meta name="googlebot" content="NOODP" />
<meta name="HW.ad-path" content="/cgi/content/full/104/13/990" />
<meta content="/jnci/104/13/990.atom" name="HW.identifier" />
<meta name="DC.Format" content="text/html" />
<meta name="DC.Language" content="en" />
<meta content="Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Interventions for Elevated Depressive Symptoms in Adults Diagnosed With Cancer"
name="DC.Title" />
<meta content="10.1093/jnci/djs256" name="DC.Identifier" />
<meta content="2012-07-03" name="DC.Date" />
<meta content="Oxford University Press" name="DC.Publisher" />
<meta content="Stacey L. Hart" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Michael A. Hoyt" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Michael Diefenbach" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Derek R. Anderson" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Kristin M. Kilbourn" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Lynette L. Craft" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Jennifer L. Steel" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Pim Cuijpers" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="David C. Mohr" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Mark Berendsen" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Bonnie Spring" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Annette L. Stanton" name="DC.Contributor" />
<meta content="Journal of the National Cancer Institute"
name="citation_journal_title" />
<meta content="JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst" name="citation_journal_abbrev" />
<meta content="0027-8874" name="citation_issn" />
<meta content="1460-2105" name="citation_issn" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Stacey L. Hart" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Michael A. Hoyt" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Michael Diefenbach" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Derek R. Anderson" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Kristin M. Kilbourn" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Lynette L. Craft" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Jennifer L. Steel" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Pim Cuijpers" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="David C. Mohr" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Mark Berendsen" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Bonnie Spring" />
<meta name="citation_author" content="Annette L. Stanton" />
<meta content="Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Interventions for Elevated Depressive Symptoms in Adults Diagnosed With Cancer"
name="citation_title" />
<meta content="07/03/2012" name="citation_date" />
<meta content="104" name="citation_volume" />
<meta content="13" name="citation_issue" />
<meta content="990" name="citation_firstpage" />
<meta content="1004" name="citation_lastpage" />
<meta content="104/13/990" name="citation_id" />
<meta content="104/13/990" name="citation_id_from_sass_path" />
<meta content="jnci;104/13/990" name="citation_mjid" />
<meta content="10.1093/jnci/djs256" name="citation_doi" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/13/990.abstract"
name="citation_abstract_html_url" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/13/990.full"
name="citation_fulltext_html_url" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/13/990.full.pdf"
name="citation_pdf_url" />
<meta content="/content/104/13.cover.gif" name="issue_cover_image" />
<meta content="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/13/990"
name="citation_public_url" />
<meta content="22767203" name="citation_pmid" />
<meta name="citation_section" content="Article" />
<meta name="robots" content="noarchive,nofollow" />
<meta name="googlebot" content="noarchive" />
<link href="/content/104/13/982.short" rel="prev" />
<link href="/content/104/13/1005.short" rel="next" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all" href="/shared/css/hw-global.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="/shared/css/hw-print.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/local/css/hw-local-global.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/publisher/css/hw-publisher-global.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/publisher/css/hw-publisher-ac.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/shared/css/hw-page-content.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/shared/css/jquery.fancybox-1.3.4.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/shared/css/hw-global-colexpand.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/publisher/css/hw-publisher-page-content.css" /><script type="text/javascript" id="session-d27493287e1">var callbackToken='53788F50B9593FC';</script><script type="text/javascript" id="session-d27493287e3">
var subCode='oupjournal_sub';
</script><script type="text/javascript">
var gAuthTimeStamp = '2015-10-27T12:15:43.088-07:00';
var gSessionId = 'RuM6gORp4eCyKlpItGarzg';
var gAuthzRequired = 'false';
var gAuthnMethods1 = 'ip ip';
var gAuthnMethods2 = 'ip,ip';
var gAuthnIPs = '18.189.59.169,18.189.59.169';
var gAuthnIndividuals = '';
var gAuthnInstitutions = '10005282,10072538,10328193,100274300,10082403,05094000,10093227,153074108,10080507,21879000,10095822,10081742,10082405,10004595,10019502,10082401,07635000,10082404,06602000';
</script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/jquery-min.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/fingerprint.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/hw-shared.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-site.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/local/js/local-js-vars.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/pages/hw-content.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/fancybox/jquery.fancybox-1.3.4.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/fancybox/jquery.easing-1.3.pack.js"></script><script type="text/javascript"
src="/shared/js/fancybox/jquery.mousewheel-3.0.4.pack.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/util/content.jquery.addVariantLink.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/util/hw-col-expand.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-modalwin-vars.js"></script><script type="text/javascript"
src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-article-dynamic-elements.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/publisher/js/hw-publisher-content.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/shared/js/util/hw-mathjax.js"></script><script type="text/x-mathjax-config">
MathJax.Hub.Config({
tex2jax: {
inlineMath: [["$","$"],["\\(","\\)"]],
processClass: "tex2jax_process|mathjax"
}
});
MathJax.Hub.Queue(function() {
gColTempResize = true;
fixColHeights(1);
gColTempResize = false;
});
</script><script type="text/javascript"
src="http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML"></script><script type="text/javascript">
var siqDOI = encodeURIComponent("10.1093/jnci/djs256");
var siqIsOpenAccess = encodeURIComponent("");
var siqPubDate = encodeURIComponent("20120703");
if (siqDOI.length == 0) {
siqDOI = "UNKNOWN";
}
if (gAuthnIndividuals.length != 0) {
if (gAuthnInstitutions.length != 0) {
authnEntity = encodeURIComponent(gAuthnIndividuals
+ ',' + gAuthnInstitutions);
} else {
authnEntity = encodeURIComponent(gAuthnIndividuals);
}
} else {
authnEntity = encodeURIComponent(gAuthnInstitutions);
}
var commonString =
'authSessionId=' + gSessionId + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authzRequired=' + gAuthzRequired + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authentication_method=' + encodeURIComponent(gAuthnMethods2) + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authnIPs=' + gAuthnIPs + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'authnInstitutions=' + authnEntity;
var gPageId = "pageid-content";
var gVariant = "full-text";
// Not completely done
var eventType = "full-text";
var accessType;
if (siqIsOpenAccess == 'true') {
accessType = 'SOA';
} else {
accessType = 'subscription';
}
var NTPT_PGEXTRA =
commonString + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'event_type=' + eventType + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'publication_date=' + siqPubDate + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'access_type=' + accessType + String.fromCharCode(0x26)
+ 'doi=' + siqDOI ;
// alert("NTPT_PGEXTRA is " + NTPT_PGEXTRA);
</script><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all" href="/resource/css/hw20.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/resource/css/h20-oup-header.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/resource/css/h20-oup-footer.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="/resource/css/h20-oup-sidebars.css" />
<link type="text/css" media="all" rel="stylesheet" href="/site/resource/jnci_h20.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/resource/css/print.css" media="print" /><script type="text/javascript" src="/resource/js/main.js"></script><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"
href="http://oi-underbar.ifactory.com/underbar/css/pf_oiunderbar.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen"
href="http://gab.cookie.oup.com/aws-cookie/jquery.fancybox-1.3.4_1.css" /><script type="text/javascript" src="/resource/js/oup_ad_size.js"></script></head>
<body class="general_page journal jnci">
<div class="hw-gen-page pagetype-content hw-pub-id-article" id="pageid-content"
itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
<noscript>
<p>We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of
cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time. <a href="http://global.oup.com/cookiepolicy/">Find out more</a></p>
</noscript>
<p class="hide">
<a href="#content">Skip Navigation</a>
</p>
<div id="secondary_nav">
<strong id="page_logo" title="Oxford Journals"><a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/"><span>Oxford Journals</span></a></strong>
<ul>
<li id="nav_contact_us" title="Contact Us"><a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/contact_us.html"><span>Contact Us</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_my_basket" title="My Basket"><a href="https://secure.oxfordjournals.org/basket.html"><span>My Basket</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_my_account" title="My Account"><a href="http://services.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/tslogin?url=http://www.oxfordjournals.org/service/Register"><span>My
Account</span></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="header">
<h1 id="page_title" title="JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst"><a href="/"><span>
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst
</span></a></h1>
</div>
<div id="primary_nav">
<ul>
<li id="nav_about_this_journal" title="About This Journal">
<a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/about.html">
<span>About This Journal</span>
</a>
</li>
<li id="nav_contact_this_journal" title="Contact This Journal"><a href="/cgi/feedback/"><span>Contact This Journal</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_subscriptions" title="Subscriptions">
<a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/access_purchase/buy_online.html">
<span>Subscriptions</span>
</a>
</li>
<li id="nav_current_issue" title="Current"><a href="/content/current"><span>View Current Issue (Volume 107 Issue 10 October 2015)</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_archive" title="Archive"><a href="/content/by/year"><span>Archive</span></a></li>
<li id="nav_search" title="Search"><a href="/search"><span>Search</span></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="user_nav">
<div class="header-ac-elements">
<div id="authstring">
<ul>
<li class="subscr-ref">Institution: MIT Libraries</li>
<li class="no-left-border">
<a href="/login?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fjnci.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F104%2F13%2F990.full">
Sign In as Personal Subscriber
</a>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<ul id="site-breadcrumbs">
<li class="first"><a href="http://services.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/tslogin?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxfordjournals.org">Oxford Journals</a></li>
<li><span class="breadcrumb_subjects"><a href="http://www.oxfordjournals.org/subject/medicine/"
class="breadcrumb_subject">Medicine & Health</a></span></li>
<li><a href="/">JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst</a></li>
<li><a href="/content/104/13.toc">
<span xmlns="" class="volume-value">Volume 104</span>
<span xmlns="" class="issue-value"> Issue 13</span></a></li>
<li>Pp. <span class="slug-pages">
990-1004.
</span></li>
</ul>
<div id="oas_top" class="ad_hidden">
<iframe id="id_advertframe_top"
src="/resource/htmlfiles/advert.html?p=Top&u=jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/13/990.full"
width="0"
height="0"
frameborder="0"
scrolling="no"
class="resize_ad"></iframe>
</div>
<a name="content"></a>
<div id="h20_page"></div>
<div id="content-block">
<div class="article fulltext-view" itemprop="articleBody"><span class="highwire-journal-article-marker-start"></span><h1 id="article-title-1" itemprop="headline">Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Interventions for Elevated Depressive Symptoms in Adults Diagnosed With Cancer</h1>
<div class="contributors">
<ol class="contributor-list" id="contrib-group-1">
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-1" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Stacey+L.+Hart&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Stacey L. Hart</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-2" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Michael+A.+Hoyt&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Michael A. Hoyt</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-3" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Michael+Diefenbach&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Michael Diefenbach</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-4" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Derek+R.+Anderson&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Derek R. Anderson</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-5" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Kristin+M.+Kilbourn&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Kristin M. Kilbourn</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-6" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Lynette+L.+Craft&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Lynette L. Craft</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-7" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Jennifer+L.+Steel&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Jennifer L. Steel</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-8" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Pim+Cuijpers&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Pim Cuijpers</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-9" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=David+C.+Mohr&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">David C. Mohr</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-10" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Mark+Berendsen&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Mark Berendsen</a></span>,
</li>
<li class="contributor" id="contrib-11" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope"
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span class="name" itemprop="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Bonnie+Spring&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Bonnie Spring</a></span> and
</li>
<li class="last" id="contrib-12"><span class="name"><a class="name-search"
href="/search?author1=Annette+L.+Stanton&sortspec=date&submit=Submit">Annette L. Stanton</a></span></li>
</ol>
<ol class="corresp-list">
<li class="corresp" id="corresp-1">Correspondence to: Annette L. Stanton, PhD, Department of Psychology, 1285 Franz Hall, Box 951563, University of California
Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 (e-mail: <span class="em-link"><span class="em-addr">astanton{at}ucla.edu</span></span>).
</li>
</ol>
<ul class="history-list">
<li xmlns:hwp="http://schema.highwire.org/Journal" class="received"
hwp:start="2011-06-28"><span class="received-label">Received </span>June 28, 2011.
</li>
<li xmlns:hwp="http://schema.highwire.org/Journal" class="rev-recd"
hwp:start="2012-04-30"><span class="rev-recd-label">Revision received </span>April 30, 2012.
</li>
<li xmlns:hwp="http://schema.highwire.org/Journal" class="accepted"
hwp:start="2012-05-04"><span class="accepted-label">Accepted </span>May 4, 2012.
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="section abstract" id="abstract-1" itemprop="description">
<div class="section-nav">
<div class="nav-placeholder"> </div><a href="#sec-5" title="Methods" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Abstract</h2>
<div id="sec-1" class="subsection">
<p id="p-1"><strong>Background</strong> Cancer patients are at increased risk for depression compared with individuals with no cancer diagnosis, yet few interventions
target depressed cancer patients.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-2" class="subsection materials">
<p id="p-2"><strong>Methods</strong> Efficacy of psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic interventions for depression in cancer patients who met an entry threshold
for depressive symptoms was examined by meta-analysis. Five electronic databases were systematically reviewed to identify
randomized controlled trials meeting the selection criteria. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’ <em>g</em> and were pooled to compare pre- and postrandomization depressive symptoms with a random effects model. Subgroup analyses
tested moderators of effect sizes, such as comparison of different intervention modalities, with a mixed effects model. All
statistical tests were two-sided.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-3" class="subsection">
<p id="p-3"><strong>Results</strong> Ten randomized controlled trials (six psychotherapeutic and four pharmacologic studies) met the selection criteria; 1362
participants with mixed cancer types and stages had been randomly assigned to treatment groups. One outlier trial was removed
from analyses. The random effects model showed interventions to be superior to control conditions on reducing depressive symptoms
postintervention (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.43, 95% confidence interval = 0.30 to 0.56, <em>P</em> < .001). In the four psychotherapeutic trials with follow-up assessment, interventions were more effective than control conditions
up to 12–18 months after patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (<em>P</em> < .001). Although each approach was more effective than the control conditions in improving depressive symptoms (<em>P</em> < .001), subgroup analyses showed that cognitive behavioral therapy appeared more effective than problem-solving therapy
(<em>P</em> = .01), but not more effective than pharmacologic intervention (<em>P</em> = .07).
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-4" class="subsection">
<p id="p-4"><strong>Conclusions</strong> Our findings suggest that psychological and pharmacologic approaches can be targeted productively toward cancer patients
with elevated depressive symptoms. Research is needed to maximize effectiveness, accessibility, and integration into clinical
care of interventions for depressed cancer patients.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-5">By the year 2005, nearly 500 unique studies, 63% of which involved randomized designs, constituted the knowledge base on the
efficacy of psychosocial interventions for individuals diagnosed with cancer (<a id="xref-ref-1-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-1">1</a>). This literature often targets multiple outcomes, such as quality of life, distress, physical symptoms, and fatigue (<a id="xref-ref-1-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-1">1</a>). Dramatically fewer trials assess depression as a primary outcome, although it is one of the most disabling psychological
conditions experienced by cancer patients. Still fewer trials target the subgroup of individuals most in need of an intervention:
those who have elevated depressive symptoms or are clinically depressed. The primary goal of this meta-analysis is to examine
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic interventions for depressive
symptoms in individuals who are diagnosed with cancer and meet an entry threshold for elevated depressive symptoms.
</p>
<p id="p-6" class="intend">Risk for depression among the population after a cancer diagnosis is higher compared with the population with no diagnosis
(<a id="xref-ref-2-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-2">2</a>), and prevalence of major depression diagnosed via standardized interview is estimated to be approximately 16% (<a id="xref-ref-3-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-3">3</a>). Depression not only represents a psychological burden for adults with cancer but also carries negative health and behavioral
consequences, including nonadherence to medical regimens (<a id="xref-ref-4-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-4">4</a>), increased emergency and inpatient service use (<a id="xref-ref-5-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-5">5</a>), delayed return to work (<a id="xref-ref-6-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-6">6</a>), and possibly elevated rates of suicidal ideation or suicide (<a id="xref-ref-7-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-7">7</a>–<a id="xref-ref-10-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-10">10</a>) and mortality (<a id="xref-ref-10-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-10">10</a>–<a id="xref-ref-17-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-17">17</a>). In light of the pervasive impact of depression, it is essential to investigate whether published interventions are effective
in reducing depression among cancer patients and to determine which approaches are most promising.
</p>
<p id="p-7" class="intend">Reviewers of the literature on interventions designed to improve quality of life, including depression, in individuals diagnosed
with cancer have drawn inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of interventions (<a id="xref-ref-18-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-18">18</a>–<a id="xref-ref-30-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-30">30</a>). However, most interventions include participants regardless of their baseline standing on the outcome of interest. For
example, one review of 60 psychosocial interventions for depressive symptoms or anxiety in cancer patients revealed that only
5% of studies restricted eligibility to patients meeting a specified threshold for distress (<a id="xref-ref-24-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-24">24</a>). Individuals with low depressive symptoms at baseline might not be likely to benefit from interventions (<a id="xref-ref-29-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-29">29</a>,<a id="xref-ref-31-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>,<a id="xref-ref-32-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-32">32</a>), in that their outcome assessment contains little room for improvement (although prevention of future depressive symptoms
and benefit on other outcomes are possible). Combining trials that do and do not use an eligibility criterion for depression
may underestimate intervention efficacy for individuals in most need of an intervention. Specifically selecting trials for
cancer patients with elevated depressive symptoms or diagnosed depression, Rodin et al. (<a id="xref-ref-33-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-33">33</a>) conducted a systematic review of 11 interventions. They found “limited evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological
and psychosocial interventions in the treatment of cancer patients with depressive disorders” (<a id="xref-ref-33-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-33">33</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-8" class="intend">To our knowledge, no previously published review has included a quantitative analysis of the efficacy of psychosocial and
pharmacologic approaches for individuals diagnosed with cancer who meet entry criteria for elevated depressive symptoms. Our
review identifies existing interventions that can be productively directed toward depressed cancer patients, illuminates limitations
in the current literature, and proposes directions for research and clinical practice. In addition to estimating the efficacy
of extant interventions and the duration of the effects through a meta-analysis, we examined whether efficacy varies as a
function of therapeutic approach (ie, specific psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy). We also considered other potential moderators
including characteristics of the samples, cancer, interventions, and trial quality by pooling relevant data from the trials
that met the eligibility criteria.
</p>
<div class="section materials" id="sec-5">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#abstract-1" title="Abstract" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#sec-16" title="Discussion" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Methods</h2>
<div id="sec-6" class="subsection">
<h3>Literature Search Strategy</h3>
<p id="p-9">MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched using appropriate controlled-vocabulary
terms specific to each database (<a href="http://hwmaint.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/djs256/DC1">Supplementary</a> methods, available online) and keyword searching for terms indicating depression and frequently used assessments of depressive
symptoms (such as depression, depressive disorder, Beck Depression Inventory); cancer (including neoplasm, cancer, leukemia);
and intervention trials (including random, placebo, treatment). The searches were inclusive of studies published in English
from each database’s inception through October 31, 2011. We also examined the references of the articles identified through
the searches and relevant reviews and meta-analyses. We did not include three of the studies included in the systematic review
by Rodin et al. (<a id="xref-ref-33-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-33">33</a>) because two studies (<a id="xref-ref-34-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-34">34</a>,<a id="xref-ref-35-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-35">35</a>) did not include an eligibility criterion for depressive symptoms and one (<a id="xref-ref-36-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-36">36</a>) was not a randomized trial.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-7" class="subsection">
<h3>Article Selection Strategy</h3>
<p id="p-10">Four pairs of raters (S. Hart, M. Hoyt, M. Diefenbach, D. Anderson, K. Kilbourn, L. Craft, J. Steel, A. Stanton) reviewed
unique entries from database searches. Each rater reviewed the abstract independently, and articles were obtained when the
pairs agreed that the article required full-text examination; discrepancies were resolved by a third rater. Rater pairs conducted
full-text review of the resulting articles for the following eligibility criteria: 1) adult participants (18 years or older)
with a cancer diagnosis at the time of study entry; 2) inclusion criterion of elevated depressive symptoms at the time of
study entry, as defined by each author, including specified threshold on a questionnaire or interview assessment; 3) random
assignment to one or more interventions vs a usual care, placebo, attention control, or waiting-list control condition; and
4) depressive symptoms assessed as an outcome. Any RCT that included a psychosocial/behavioral intervention such as cognitive
behavioral therapy (CBT), physical activity, and/or pharmacologic component qualified for inclusion, including collaborative
care and complementary approaches such as mind–body approaches.
</p>
<p id="p-11" class="intend">Five trials employing mixed eligibility thresholds in which presence of depressive symptoms was not required [eg, depressive
symptoms and/or smoking and/or problem drinking (<a id="xref-ref-37-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-37">37</a>); depressive symptoms and/or anxiety (<a id="xref-ref-38-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-38">38</a>,<a id="xref-ref-39-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-39">39</a>) and/or fatigue (<a id="xref-ref-40-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-40">40</a>); depressive symptoms and pain (<a id="xref-ref-41-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-41">41</a>)] did not qualify for inclusion. Also, eight trials that compared two interventions in the absence of a control condition
were not included (<a id="xref-ref-42-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-42">42</a>–<a id="xref-ref-49-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-49">49</a>).
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-8" class="subsection">
<h3>Article Review Strategy</h3>
<p id="p-12">Using an online coding program designed for this project, the aforementioned four pairs of raters independently coded selected
trials. Data regarding characteristics of the sample, intervention, and instrumentation were extracted, as were continuous
data from assessments of depressive symptoms (percentage of participants meeting author-defined criteria for categorical “responder”
or “remitted” were not extracted), to calculate effect sizes. The program produced a list of discrepancies, which were then
systematically resolved by consensus, and final data were entered for each study. Studies were assessed for quality using
a modified 14-item version of the PEDro scale (<a id="xref-ref-50-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-50">50</a>), which was designed to identify studies that are generalizable, internally valid, and interpretable. The modified coding
scheme was identical to the 11-item scale (<a id="xref-ref-50-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-50">50</a>, http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/), with three additional items. Two items assessed quality of treatment
fidelity (use of a treatment manual, monitoring of treatment implementation), as recommended by the Treatment Fidelity Workgroup
of the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium (<a id="xref-ref-51-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-51">51</a>). The third item assessed provision of loss to follow-up information, included as an important quality indicator in other
reviews of interventions for cancer patients (<a id="xref-ref-26-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-26">26</a>). When published articles did not present sufficient data to calculate the effect sizes, we contacted authors for the required
information.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-9" class="subsection">
<h3>Statistical Analysis</h3>
<p id="p-13">Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2.2.055, Biostat, Englewood, NJ) was used to calculate effect sizes and analyze data
(<a id="xref-ref-52-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-52">52</a>). Hedges’ <em>g</em> was calculated for each trial and the overall pool of trials and was used as a measure of the effect size. Hedges’ <em>g</em> is calculated on the basis of the standardized mean difference effect size, which uses the pooled within-groups SD but corrects
for bias from small sample sizes and therefore is considered to be more accurate than the standardized effect size typically
measured by Cohen’s <em>d</em> (<a id="xref-ref-53-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-53">53</a>). Hedges’ <em>g</em> is a conservative estimate of effect size, which typically is interpreted by Cohen’s <em>d </em>(<a id="xref-ref-54-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-54">54</a>) guidelines (small effect = 0.20, medium effect = 0.50, large effect = 0.80). A positive effect size indicates that the intervention
was superior to the control condition in reducing depressive symptoms, whereas a negative effect size indicates that the control
condition outperformed the intervention. For example, a Hedges’ <em>g</em> of 0.50 would indicate that the intervention condition produced a reduction in depressive symptoms of half a standard deviation
more than did the control condition.
</p>
<p id="p-14" class="intend">When outcome data for more than one measure of depressive symptoms were reported in a given study (a violation of outcome
independence), we used the mean of the effect sizes (<a id="xref-ref-55-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-55">55</a>). A variety of approaches exist to examine multiple assessments of the same construct, including multivariable approaches
(<a id="xref-ref-56-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-56">56</a>). We used the commonly employed method of combining effect sizes for multiple outcomes, which tends to yield a more conservative
effect size estimate than do multivariable approaches (<a id="xref-ref-57-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-57">55,57</a>). This was applicable for four studies (<a id="xref-ref-58-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>–<a id="xref-ref-61-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>). Two separate effect sizes were calculated for trials containing two intervention groups (<a id="xref-ref-59-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>), in light of the observation that the two active treatments differed substantially in approach or content, such as two different
medications or CBT vs social support.
</p>
<p id="p-15" class="intend">Individual effect sizes were pooled in the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program and were calculated separately for prerandomization
compared with postintervention outcomes. The assessment closest in time to completion of the intervention was used for calculation
of posttreatment effect size. Effect sizes were also calculated for prerandomization to longer-term follow-up assessment,
when follow-up assessments were reported. Because none of the studies reported the correlation between baseline and postintervention
outcomes, we used a fixed correlation of 0.90 for within-group comparison. This approach has a small chance of overestimating
effect size and has been used in earlier psychological intervention research examining improvement rates (<a id="xref-ref-64-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-64">64</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-16" class="intend">Variability was assumed to be caused by both sampling error and random differences; therefore, the data were fit to a random
effects model, which provides more conservative estimates than a fixed effects model (<a id="xref-ref-65-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-65">65</a>). A random effects estimate assumes additional variance beyond the set of studies and facilitates generalizability of results.
We examined the distribution of effect sizes to identify any extreme values for possible elimination from analyses (<a id="xref-ref-66-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-66">66</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-17" class="intend">We identified several a priori<em> </em>moderators, of which the primary one involved a comparison of specific psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic approaches. Others
included PEDro trial quality criteria, sample and cancer characteristics (ie, sociodemographics, cancer type, cancer stage,
time elapsed since diagnosis), questionnaire vs interview assessment approach, and intervention characteristics, such as length,
group vs individual, and type of control group. Examination of any moderator required that it must be represented in a minimum
of two trials, have sufficient variability across studies (note that the majority of PEDro criteria showed little variability
across studies), and contain sufficient descriptive data for meaningful analysis. The subgroup analyses used a mixed effects
model, which pools studies within subgroups with a random effects model, but tested for statistically significant between-groups
differences with a fixed effects model. A Bonferroni correction was used to control for inflation of Type I error when multiple
between-groups comparisons were conducted. To test homogeneity of variance of the different effect sizes, we used the <em>Q</em> test statistic (<a id="xref-ref-66-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-66">66</a>), which indicates whether the variability in effect sizes is within the range that would be expected if all studies shared
a common population effect size. We also examined the <em>I</em>
<sup>2</sup> statistic, which ranges between 0% and 100% and indicates the proportion of the total variance accounted for by heterogeneity
(larger percentages reflect greater heterogeneity). We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) around <em>I</em>
<sup>2</sup> (<a id="xref-ref-67-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-67">67</a>), using the noncentral χ<em>
</em>
<sup>2</sup>-based approach within the heterogi module for Stata (<a id="xref-ref-68-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-68">68</a>). For continuous moderators, such as mean age, we used meta-regression techniques in the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program,
using the method of moments estimator.
</p>
<p id="p-18" class="intend">To evaluate sources of bias, we created and examined a funnel plot, which graphically displays the measure of study effect
size against sample size. A funnel plot displaying absent publication bias should result in a symmetrical inverted funnel-shaped
graph. We also used Duval and Tweedie’s (<a id="xref-ref-69-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>) trim and fill procedure, which “trims” off the asymmetric outlying part of the funnel plot, the remainder of which is used
to estimate the true center of the plot. The procedure calculates the number of missing studies and provides an estimate of
what the effect size would have been without bias, on the basis of “filling in” or imputing missing studies. Egger’s test
of the intercept, a linear regression method, was used to further capture the bias in the funnel plot (<a id="xref-ref-70-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-70">70</a>). The fail-safe <em>N</em> also was calculated to determine the number of non–statistically significant trials missing from the analysis that would,
if included, reduce the observed effect size to a non–statistically significant level.
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-10" class="subsection">
<h3>ResultsSelection of RCTs</h3>
<p id="p-19">A search of the five databases identified 7,770 unique studies, of which the rater pairs conducted full-text review of 350
articles (<a id="xref-fig-1-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F1">Figure 1</a>). Fourteen unique trials and one report of a follow-up analysis met all inclusion criteria. Five reports included sufficient
data to calculate effect size (<a id="xref-ref-58-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>–<a id="xref-ref-60-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>), and five authors provided additional data that included pre- and all postintervention means, SDs, and sample sizes separated
based on the treatment arm (<a id="xref-ref-61-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>–<a id="xref-ref-75-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>). Therefore, 10 unique trials (six psychotherapeutic and four pharmacologic) that included a total of 1362 participants with
mixed cancer types and stages who had been randomly assigned to treatment groups were included in the meta-analysis (<a id="xref-fig-1-2" class="xref-fig" href="#F1">Figure 1</a>). For the remaining four articles, including two publications from one trial, the authors were unable to provide essential
data (<a id="xref-ref-76-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-76">76</a>–<a id="xref-ref-79-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-79">79</a>).
</p>
<div id="F1" class="fig pos-float type-figure odd">
<div class="fig-inline"><a href="990/F1.expansion.html"><img alt="Figure 1" src="990/F1.small.gif" /></a><div class="callout"><span>View larger version:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/F1.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/F1.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
<ul class="fig-services">
<li class="ppt-link"><a href="/powerpoint/104/13/990/F1">Download as PowerPoint Slide</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="fig-caption"><span class="fig-label">Figure 1</span>
<p id="p-20" class="first-child">Flow chart of study identification by systematic literature review.</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sec-11" class="subsection">
<h3>Description of the Sample of RCTs</h3>
<p id="p-21">
<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-1" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a> provides demographic and cancer-related data for the 10 trials from which patient data were included in the meta-analysis.
Of the 10 trials, seven enrolled outpatients with mixed cancer types and stages. The time elapsed after cancer diagnosis ranged
widely from 6 or fewer weeks to 7 years.
</p>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T1">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/T1.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/T1.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 1.</span>
<p id="p-22" class="first-child">Patients and cancer characteristics from studies included in the meta-analysis</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-33" class="intend">Across the six psychotherapeutic trials, 1273 eligible adult cancer patients were invited to take part, of whom 1000 (78%)
were randomly assigned to treatment arms and 725 (72.5%) completed the postintervention assessment (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-2" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>). Most participants were women (76%; not weighted by sample size) and on average were 51 years of age. The education level
and racial/ethnic composition of the included patients varied widely.
</p>
<p id="p-34" class="intend">Only one of the four pharmacologic trials reported the number of adults invited to participate (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-3" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Table 1</a>). A total of 362 participants were randomly assigned to treatment arms, and 224 (62%) completed the postintervention assessment.
Participants were mostly women (83%) and had an average age of 55 years. These reports did not provide sufficient data on
education level, and only two studies reported data on race/ethnicity (>80% of patients were white).
</p>
<p id="p-35" class="intend">
<a id="xref-table-wrap-2-1" class="xref-table" href="#T2">Table 2</a> displays recruitment and intervention characteristics. Five of the six psychotherapeutic trials used systematic screening,
which included screening of consecutive potentially eligible patients attending clinic to identify participants. Four trials
evaluated a form of problem-solving therapy (PST, three of these within a collaborative care or multimodal approach that included
antidepressant medication as an option), and two trials administered CBT. All studies except one used an individual intervention
delivery approach (group delivery in 59), which ranged from 4 to 10 sessions, with the exception that participants in the
study by Ell et al. (<a id="xref-ref-73-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>,<a id="xref-ref-75-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>) had access to up to 1 year of collaborative care. Interventionists were trained psychologists or psychology graduate students,
social workers, nurses, oncologists, or psychiatrists. Usual care, enhanced usual care (eg, usual care plus written educational
or resource information), or a waiting list for treatment constituted the control conditions.
</p>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T2">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/T2.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/T2.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 2.</span>
<p id="p-36" class="first-child">Recruitment and intervention characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-38" class="intend">The goal of the four pharmacologic trials was to evaluate the efficacy of various antidepressant medications against a pill
placebo (<a id="xref-table-wrap-2-2" class="xref-table" href="#T2">Table 2</a>). Only one trial reported that screening was systematic (<a id="xref-ref-71-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>). Pharmacologic interventions ranged in duration from 4 to 12 weeks.
</p>
<p id="p-39" class="intend">
<a id="xref-table-wrap-3-1" class="xref-table" href="#T3">Table 3</a> summarizes how depression was defined and assessed. Studies most often employed validated questionnaire and/or interview
assessments to assess both eligibility and outcomes. Postintervention assessments ranged from 8 weeks to 12 months after random
assignment to treatment arms in psychotherapeutic trials and 28 days to 12 weeks in pharmacologic trials. Of the 10 trials,
only four psychotherapeutic trials included a follow-up assessment, which ranged from 6 to 24 months. Baseline levels of depressive
symptoms typically ranged from mild to moderate for psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic trials, depending on the outcome measure
used.
</p>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T3">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/T3.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/T3.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 3.</span>
<p id="p-40" class="first-child">Depression assessments and baseline depression severity</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p id="p-47" class="intend">
<a id="xref-table-wrap-4-1" class="xref-table" href="#T4">Table 4</a> displays coding of the PEDro criteria, including quality of randomization procedures, methods of blinding, reporting of data,
data analysis, treatment fidelity, and adequacy of follow-up. Trials met 9–12 of the 14 quality criteria. One trial (<a id="xref-ref-63-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>) did not meet the allocation concealment criterion. Two trials (<a id="xref-ref-62-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>) did not have groups similar at baseline on prognostic indicators, such as cancer stage. As is standard in these trials,
no psychotherapeutic trial blinded treatment allocation for subjects or therapists. Two trials did not report blinding treatment
allocation for assessors (<a id="xref-ref-59-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-60-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>). Three studies had measures of key outcomes on more than 85% of participants (<a id="xref-ref-59-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>). Five trials did not report having a treatment manual (<a id="xref-ref-58-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>–<a id="xref-ref-60-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>). Two trials did not report monitoring of treatment implementation (<a id="xref-ref-59-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-60-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-60">60</a>).
</p>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T4">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/T4.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/T4.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 4.</span>
<p id="p-48" class="first-child">Summary of quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sec-12" class="subsection">
<h3>Effect of Intervention Compared With Control Conditions</h3>
<p id="p-54">All 10 studies (with 13 comparisons of active treatment against the control condition after taking into account two intervention
groups in three trials) reported posttest intervention effects against a control group. As displayed in <a id="xref-table-wrap-5-1" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a>, the random effects model showed that intervention conditions produced statistically significant reductions in depressive
symptoms compared with control conditions [Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.48 to 1.54, <em>P</em> < .001]. Heterogeneity was very high (<em>I</em>
<sup>2 </sup>= 93.4%, 95% CI = 90.0 to 95.0; <em>Q</em> = 181.1, degrees of freedom [<em>df</em>] = 12, <em>P</em> < .001). Examination of the effect sizes for outliers indicated that the two comparisons by Nezu et al. (<a id="xref-ref-63-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>) produced very large effects for PST (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.90 to 4.23, <em>P</em> < .001) and PST with involvement of a significant other (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 4.32, 95% CI = 3.55 to 5.08, <em>P</em> < .001), both of which were dramatically larger than those of other studies (<a id="xref-table-wrap-5-2" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a>). A common recommendation for handling outliers is to remove them from the effect size distribution (<a id="xref-ref-66-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-66">66</a>); eliminating that trial changed the overall effect size considerably, and the random effects model revealed a smaller effect.
This model indicated that active treatments produced statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms compared
with control conditions; heterogeneity was not statistically significant (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.56, <em>P</em> < 0.001; <em>I</em>
<sup>2</sup> = 0%, 95% CI = 0.0 to 60.0; <em>Q</em> = 8.67, <em>df</em> = 10, <em>P</em> = .56) (<a id="xref-table-wrap-5-3" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a>). Consequently, that trial was removed from further analyses. <a id="xref-fig-2-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F2">Figure 2</a> displays the forest plot for the remaining nine trials. As noted earlier, four studies used more than one outcome measure,
and two studies had more than one intervention group (one of which also reported multiple outcomes). <a id="xref-table-wrap-5-4" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a> shows that using only the lowest reported effect size for each of these studies did not substantially influence the statistically
significant effect on depressive symptoms (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.49, <em>P</em> < .001), as was true when the analysis was limited to the highest reported effect size (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.70, <em>P</em> < .001).
</p>
<div id="F2" class="fig pos-float type-figure odd">
<div class="fig-inline"><a href="990/F2.expansion.html"><img alt="Figure 2" src="990/F2.small.gif" /></a><div class="callout"><span>View larger version:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/F2.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/F2.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
<ul class="fig-services">
<li class="ppt-link"><a href="/powerpoint/104/13/990/F2">Download as PowerPoint Slide</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="fig-caption"><span class="fig-label">Figure 2</span>
<p id="p-55" class="first-child">. Forest plot of effect sizes (Hedges’ <em>g</em>, designated g in the figure) for trials included in the meta-analysis (<a id="xref-ref-58-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-58">58</a>–<a id="xref-ref-62-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>–<a id="xref-ref-75-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>). The corresponding 95% CI (designated “Lower” and “Upper” and indicated graphically by whisker bars) are also given. Effect
sizes for the trials containing two intervention groups are displayed separately (<a id="xref-ref-59-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>). CBT = cognitive behavioral therapy; CI = confidence interval; D = desipramine; P = paroxetine; SS = social support.
</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table pos-float" id="T5">
<div class="table-inline">
<div class="callout"><span>View this table:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/T5.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/T5.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-caption"><span class="table-label">Table 5</span>
<p id="p-56" class="first-child">. Effects of intervention compared with control conditions and subgroup meta-analyses</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sec-13" class="subsection">
<h3>Postintervention Compared With Follow-up Assessments</h3>
<p id="p-61">Four trials (all psychotherapeutic) provided information on duration of the intervention effects (<a id="xref-ref-59-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>–<a id="xref-ref-75-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>). Three trials (<a id="xref-ref-59-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>), provided follow-up data 6–8 months postrandomization, and Strong et al. (<a id="xref-ref-74-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>) also included 12-month follow-up. The fourth trial (<a id="xref-ref-73-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>,<a id="xref-ref-75-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>) had follow-up at 18 and 24 months after random assignment to treatment arms. Because two trials had more than one follow-up
and Ell et al. (<a id="xref-ref-73-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>,<a id="xref-ref-75-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>) conducted a longer follow-up, we performed analyses in three ways (<a id="xref-table-wrap-5-5" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-62" class="intend">First, the three trials with follow-up at 6–8 months (<a id="xref-ref-59-8" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>) produced statistically significantly greater reductions in depressive symptoms than did the control conditions postintervention
(Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.82, <em>P</em> < .001) and at 6–8 months (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.78, <em>P</em> < .001). Second, the two trials that provided data at 12–18 months (<a id="xref-ref-73-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>–<a id="xref-ref-75-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>) demonstrated statistically significantly greater reductions in depressive symptoms favoring intervention vs control conditions
(Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.53, <em>P</em> < .001 at postintervention; Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.55, <em>P</em> < .001 at 12–18 months). For the trial that had 24-month follow-up (<a id="xref-ref-75-8" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>), the intervention was effective postintervention (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.51, <em>P</em> = .04), but not at 24 months after random assignment (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.19, 95% CI = 20.08 to 0.46, <em>P</em> = .17).
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-14" class="subsection">
<h3>Subgroup Analyses</h3>
<p id="p-63">Effects of CBT vs PST vs pharmacologic interventions were assessed. For the psychotherapeutic studies, we created subgroups
on the basis of the theoretical approach employed: CBT (<a id="xref-ref-59-9" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-61-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>) vs PST (delivered within a collaborative care model or a multimodal intervention approach) (<a id="xref-ref-72-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>–<a id="xref-ref-75-9" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>). We then performed a subgroup comparison for CBT vs PST vs pharmacologic interventions (<a id="xref-table-wrap-5-6" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a>). CBT, PST, and pharmacologic interventions were more effective than control conditions in reducing depressive symptoms,
as indicated by statistically significant effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.48 to 1.18, <em>P</em> < .001; Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.50, <em>P</em> <.001; Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.68, <em>P</em> < .001, respectively). The difference among the three groups was statistically significant (<em>P</em> = .04). Post hoc analyses revealed a statistically significant difference between CBT and PST (<em>P =</em> .01), but the difference was not statistically significant between CBT and pharmacologic interventions (<em>P</em> = .07) or between PST and pharmacologic interventions (<em>P</em> = .48). The difference between CBT vs PST remained statistically significant after a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests
(<em>P</em> = .02).
</p>
<p id="p-64" class="intend">The only PEDro criterion that had sufficient variability for analysis was whether at least 85% of study participants had postintervention
outcome data available for analysis (<a id="xref-table-wrap-4-2" class="xref-table" href="#T4">Table 4</a>). Of the psychotherapeutic studies, two met this criterion (<a id="xref-ref-59-10" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-74-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>) and demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in depressive symptoms for active compared with control conditions
(Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.81, <em>P</em> < .001) (<a id="xref-table-wrap-5-7" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a>). The three studies that did not meet this criterion (<a id="xref-ref-61-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-61">61</a>,<a id="xref-ref-72-8" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>,<a id="xref-ref-73-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>) also produced a statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.52, <em>P</em> = .004) (<a id="xref-table-wrap-5-8" class="xref-table" href="#T5">Table 5</a>). The two effect sizes were similar (<em>P</em> = .10). Note that none of the pharmacologic trials met this criterion.
</p>
<p id="p-65" class="intend">None of the continuous variables examined through metaregression were statistically significantly associated with the observed
overall effect size. Specifically, age (<em>P</em> = .91), percentage of female participants (<em>P</em> = .13), the number of psychotherapeutic sessions (<em>P</em> = .98), and the number of weeks on medication (<em>P</em> = .93) were not statistically significantly associated with the effect of active treatment on depressive symptoms as determined
by the method of moments estimator (<a href="http://hwmaint.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/djs256/DC1">Supplementary Table 1</a>, available online).
</p>
</div>
<div id="sec-15" class="subsection">
<h3>Publication Bias</h3>
<p id="p-66">The funnel plot (<a id="xref-fig-3-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F3">Figure 3</a>) shows a generally even distribution of effect sizes by standard errors, but the right side of the plot was populated by
an additional two studies, compared with the left side. The slight skewness on the right side was confirmed by the fact that
Duval and Tweedie’s (<a id="xref-ref-69-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>) trim and fill procedure imputed two studies on the left side of the plot, which indicates slight publication bias. As shown
in <a id="xref-fig-3-2" class="xref-fig" href="#F3">Figure 3</a>, the two studies that were imputed using the procedures described in the statistical analysis section slightly reduced the
overall effect size (Hedges’ <em>g</em> = 0.39). However, the 95% CI of 0.24 to 0.54 for this effect size did not include 0. Egger’s test of the intercept was not
statistically significant (<em>P</em> = .16) for bias in the funnel plot. The fail-safe <em>N</em> (the number of unpublished studies reporting statistically nonsignificant results needed to reduce the observed effect to
statistical nonsignificance) of 106 confirms the relative stability of the observed effect size.
</p>
<div id="F3" class="fig pos-float type-figure odd">
<div class="fig-inline"><a href="990/F3.expansion.html"><img alt="Figure 3" src="990/F3.small.gif" /></a><div class="callout"><span>View larger version:</span><ul class="callout-links">
<li><a href="990/F3.expansion.html">In this window</a></li>
<li><a class="in-nw" href="990/F3.expansion.html">In a new window</a></li>
</ul>
<ul class="fig-services">
<li class="ppt-link"><a href="/powerpoint/104/13/990/F3">Download as PowerPoint Slide</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="fig-caption"><span class="fig-label">Figure 3</span>
<p id="p-67" class="first-child">. Funnel plot of standard error by Hedges’ <em>g</em> for trials included in the meta-analysis. The <strong>open circles</strong> represent observed studies and the <strong>filled circles</strong> represent imputed studies. The <strong>open diamond</strong> represents the observed effect size. The <strong>closed diamond</strong> represents the imputed effect size from Duval and Tweedie’s (<a id="xref-ref-69-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-69">69</a>) trim and fill procedure. Egger’s test of the intercept indicated bias in the funnel plots was not statistically significant
(<em>P</em> = .16).
</p>
<div class="sb-div caption-clear"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="sec-16">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#sec-5" title="Methods" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#fn-group-1" title="Footnotes" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p id="p-68">This meta-analysis of RCTs reveals that the set of five psychotherapeutic (after removal of one outlier) and four pharmacologic
interventions were reliably superior in reducing depressive symptoms relative to control conditions for adults diagnosed with
cancer who met an eligibility threshold for elevated depressive symptoms. The statistically significant effect size across
trials was moderate and indicated that post-treatment, depressive symptoms were slightly less than a half SD lower for adults
in intervention groups compared with those who were assigned to control treatment. In the four psychotherapeutic trials that
included a longer-term follow-up (ie, 6–24 months postrandomization; note that the interventions were of variable length),
the follow-up effect sizes remained statistically significant up to 12–18 months after randomization (<em>P</em> < .001), indicating sustained effects.
</p>
<p id="p-69" class="intend">The effect size obtained in this meta-analysis is somewhat lower than that found in a meta-analysis of interventions for adults
who met an entry criterion for depression but were not selected for diagnosis of a medical disorder (<a id="xref-ref-80-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-80">80</a>) and is comparable to that of a meta-analysis (<a id="xref-ref-81-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-81">81</a>) of 15 RCTs of psychological interventions in patients who had elevated depressive symptoms and had been diagnosed with one
of 10 different medical disorders, including four oncology samples (<em>d</em> = .42 after two outliers with very large effect sizes were removed). Previous meta-analyses (<a id="xref-ref-23-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-23">23</a>,<a id="xref-ref-27-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-27">27</a>,<a id="xref-ref-29-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-29">29</a>) have documented the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for cancer patients unselected at study entry for depression,
particularly for individuals with relatively high baseline depressive symptoms (<a id="xref-ref-31-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>,<a id="xref-ref-32-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-32">32</a>,<a id="xref-ref-82-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-82">82</a>). For example, Schneider et al. (<a id="xref-ref-31-3" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>) conducted a meta-analysis of 27 psychosocial interventions (12 RCTs; 15 single-group designs) for cancer patients to examine
whether preintervention depressive symptoms, as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (<a id="xref-ref-83-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-83">83</a>), moderated intervention efficacy. Effects on HADS depressive symptoms were negligible when baseline depressive symptoms
were low and pronounced when symptoms were relatively high. This finding did not vary by study design or intervention type,
setting, or dose, and it held both immediately after treatment and 2–7 months later, although it weakened at longer follow-up.
Baseline depressive symptoms explained 51.5% of the variance in treatment efficacy on depressive symptoms. Randomized and
single-group interventions that specifically selected participants for elevated distress produced larger effect sizes than
did nonselective interventions, but this factor was not a unique moderator of outcomes after statistical control for baseline
depressive symptoms.
</p>
<p id="p-70" class="intend">Our findings advance this literature by demonstrating that psychological and pharmacologic approaches, evaluated in RCTs,
can be targeted productively toward cancer patients in need of intervention by virtue of clinical depression or elevated depressive
symptoms. Whether tailoring or targeting of interventions to be responsive to specific characteristics of depression in the
context of cancer, such as depression history or perceived cancer-related losses, produces more potent effects requires study.
</p>
<p id="p-71" class="intend">In the current meta-analysis, heterogeneity of effect sizes was not marked across trials, and subgroup analyses suggest that
effects did not vary systematically as a function of trial attrition rate, participant age and sex, or intervention length.
However, a comparison of CBT, PST, and pharmacologic approaches revealed that CBT produced statistically significantly larger
effects than did PST and a somewhat but statistically nonsignificantly larger effect than pharmacologic interventions; PST
and pharmacologic interventions were similar. It is important to note that these comparisons are not equivalent to comparing
the different interventions directly within an RCT. Thus, the finding of the superiority of CBT must be interpreted cautiously
and within the context of the specific trials (<a id="xref-table-wrap-1-4" class="xref-table" href="#T1">Tables 1–4</a>). In addition to their distinct intervention content, the CBT trials also differ from the other approaches in that the CBT
trials on average included somewhat fewer participants, arguably employed less stringent eligibility criteria for depressive
symptoms, and had less elapsed time from baseline to postintervention assessment compared with PST (but not with pharmacologic
trials). In addition, CBT was the sole therapeutic approach of those trials, whereas PST was administered within a collaborative
care (<a id="xref-ref-72-9" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>,<a id="xref-ref-73-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>,<a id="xref-ref-75-10" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>) or multimodal approach (<a id="xref-ref-74-6" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>), which included a pharmacologic option and did not invariably include PST (<a id="xref-ref-72-10" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-72">72</a>,<a id="xref-ref-73-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>,<a id="xref-ref-75-11" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-75">75</a>). Furthermore, although interventionists received systematic training in PST, they did not necessarily have a background
in delivering psychological treatments (<a id="xref-ref-74-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-74">74</a>), whereas interventionists in the CBT trials were experienced in that modality. These last two points also suggest the importance
of continued research on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions delivered within a specialized psycho-oncology context
vs an approach imported from integrated primary care (<a id="xref-ref-84-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-84">84</a>–<a id="xref-ref-86-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-86">86</a>).
</p>
<p id="p-72" class="intend">It is also important to note that the outlier removed from analysis was a PST trial that yielded very large effect sizes (<a id="xref-ref-63-7" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>). We could not definitively identify why this trial yielded extremely large effects. However, it differed from the other
RCTs in that it was conducted by founders of the treatment approach, provided intensive training of therapists on the manualized
protocol, involved weekly supervision provided by the founders, used recruitment of interested patients rather than systematic
screening of a clinic or other population, and required as an eligibility criterion that a significant other be willing to
participate in the intervention, all of which may have contributed to the outlying large effect sizes. The advantage of CBT
compared with other approaches to treat depression in the general population has been suggested in other reviews (<a id="xref-ref-87-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-87">87</a>,<a id="xref-ref-88-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-88">88</a>); however, randomized trials are required to test its advantage over other treatments in depressed cancer patients. Although
head-to-head comparisons of intervention approaches are accruing, none of the 10 trials identified in our literature search
compared the same two interventions (<a id="xref-ref-42-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-42">42</a>–<a id="xref-ref-45-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-45">45</a>,<a id="xref-ref-47-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-47">47</a>–<a id="xref-ref-49-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-49">49</a>,<a id="xref-ref-59-11" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-59">59</a>,<a id="xref-ref-62-8" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-63-8" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-63">63</a>). In the most relevant trial (<a id="xref-ref-47-2" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-47">47</a>), a form of PST was compared with behavioral activation treatment in breast cancer patients with major depression. Both interventions
were effective in decreasing depressive symptoms, with gains maintained or augmented throughout 12 months.
</p>
<p id="p-73" class="intend">Several limitations of this meta-analysis and the current literature are apparent. First, three trials could not be included
in the analysis because of incomplete data, and it is possible that some trials were missed, even in this comprehensive search.
The finding that more than 100 trials—each demonstrating no statistically significant reduction in depression for the intervention
(vs control condition)—would be needed to nullify the statistically significant effect of intervention, however, suggests
the effect’s stability. Nonetheless, the observation that only ten trials were available for analysis highlights the paucity
of interventions targeted to cancer patients with elevated depressive symptoms and points to the importance of conducting
additional RCTs. Second, differences among trials were pronounced on some features, including sample size, participants’ education
level, gender, race/ethnicity, cancer stage, and time elapsed after cancer diagnosis, interventionist type and expertise,
intervention length, and entry criteria for and operationalization of depression. Although statistically significant heterogeneity
in effect sizes was not evident once the one outlier was removed, a larger pool of trials might yield important moderators
of intervention effects. Third, relatively few intervention approaches were represented in this review; approaches receiving
current attention in cancer populations, such as physical activity interventions, require study for their impact on depression.
Finally, generalizability of the findings to other groups (eg, adolescents/young adults) awaits additional research.
</p>
<p id="p-74" class="intend">Limitations in the individual trials also suggest that additional research is essential. Specifically, five trials relied
on questionnaire assessment of depressive symptoms rather than interview-based assessment for depressive disorder, medication
protocols were no longer than 12 weeks in duration, attrition from the point of random assignment to the postintervention
assessment exceeded 33% in four of 10 trials (<a id="xref-ref-62-9" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-62">62</a>,<a id="xref-ref-71-5" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-71">71</a>–<a id="xref-ref-73-8" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-73">73</a>), and six trials did not include follow-up assessment beyond the postintervention point.
</p>
<p id="p-75" class="intend">The current meta-analysis revealed reliable positive effects of psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic interventions, with some
advantage for CBT, for adults diagnosed with cancer who had comorbid elevated depressive symptoms or a depression diagnosis.
These data are consonant with findings from the literature on depression in the general adult population showing that bona-fide
psychotherapies and second-generation antidepressants are effective at reducing depression in the short term (<a id="xref-ref-89-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-89">89</a>). Our findings inform two crucial clinical questions, the first of which regards the advisability of screening for depression
in cancer patients and subsequent provision of interventions specifically targeted toward individuals with elevated symptoms.
A recent meta-analysis (<a id="xref-ref-31-4" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-31">31</a>) suggests that preintervention assessment of distress may be an efficient way to identify those who are most likely to benefit
from therapeutic intervention. Further, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (<a id="xref-ref-90-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-90">90</a>) and an Institute of Medicine report (<a id="xref-ref-91-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-91">91</a>) emphasize the importance of screening cancer patients for distress. Reviews indicate that screening for depression has not
yet become a standard part of oncology care (<a id="xref-ref-92-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-92">92</a>,<a id="xref-ref-93-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-93">93</a>), however, and controversy exists regarding the utility of psychosocial screening in oncology settings (<a id="xref-ref-94-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-94">94</a>–<a id="xref-ref-97-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-97">97</a>). Our findings demonstrate that when assessment is performed with psychometrically sound questionnaires or interviews and
intervention is targeted toward cancer patients meeting criteria for elevated depressive symptoms, reliable improvement in
depression occurs, at least within a research context. The available evidence suggests that patients who demonstrate elevated
symptoms of depression should be referred for treatment. However, two caveats are important. First, because screening itself
was not randomized in these trials, we can conclude that only the combination of depression assessment and intervention (not
screening by itself) is effective. Indeed, authors of a recent review reported that no RCTs have examined whether screening
for depression in cancer patients improves depression outcomes and outweighs the potential harms of such screening (<a id="xref-ref-98-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-98">98</a>). Second, dissemination research on the effectiveness of interventions for depressed cancer patients in clinical settings
is lacking.
</p>
<p id="p-76" class="intend">In light of the efficacy of existing interventions demonstrated in this meta-analysis, a second question is whether additional
interventions require development and investigation for individuals with cancer who are depressed. Burgeoning awareness of
the importance of depression in individuals with cancer is evidenced by on-going trials of interventions targeted at this
group (<a id="xref-ref-99-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-99">99</a>,<a id="xref-ref-100-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-100">100</a>). We would argue that such intervention development and evaluation in RCTs remains essential for several reasons. First,
conclusions regarding intervention efficacy are limited by the small number of existing trials and their lack of efficacy
assessment beyond 3 months for pharmacologic trials and 24 months after randomization for psychotherapeutic trials. Second,
examination of important moderators of efficacy was limited by the small number of available trials. For example, insufficient
data were available to examine whether interventions are differentially effective for depressed individuals with advanced
cancers vs early-stage disease. A particularly interesting question is whether interventions require tailoring to individuals
who have a premorbid history of depression (<a id="xref-ref-101-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-101">101</a>) and to individuals who develop depression at particular points in the cancer trajectory (eg, at diagnosis and medical treatment,
after treatment completion, at cancer recurrence; <a id="xref-ref-102-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-102">102</a>,<a id="xref-ref-103-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-103">103</a>). Third, the obtained moderate effect size leaves room for improvement in the power of interventions to ameliorate depression.
Finally, interventions that are maximally accessible to diverse groups require study. Most interventions in the present review
were delivered in person in individual sessions, which requires substantial resources on the part of both recipients and professionals.
In light of the psychological, behavioral, and economic toll of depression, as well as its health burden on adults with cancer,
intensive attention to the development and dissemination of maximally effective, efficient, and accessible interventions for
heterogeneous cancer patients is warranted.
</p>
</div>
<div class="section fn-group" id="fn-group-1">
<div class="section-nav"><a href="#sec-16" title="Discussion" class="prev-section-link"><span>Previous Section</span></a><a href="#ref-list-1" title="References" class="next-section-link"><span>Next Section</span></a></div>
<h2>Footnotes</h2>
<ul>
<li class="fn-financial-disclosure" id="fn-6">
<p id="p-77">Funding</p>
<p id="p-78">This work was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (grant number
1R01CA133081 to ALS and K Weihs, 5K07CA118576-02 to JLS, and 5K07CA134936-03 to LLC).
</p>
</li>
<li class="fn-other" id="fn-7">
<p id="p-79">Notes</p>
<p id="p-80">The study sponsor (National Cancer Institute) played no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, or interpretation
of the data; the writing of the systematic review and meta-analysis; or the decision to submit the systematic review and meta-analysis
for publication. The authors wish to acknowledge the Society of Behavioral Medicine and its Evidence-Based Behavioral Medicine
Committee, which organized the authorship group, including committee member Dr. Joost Dekker (VU University Medical Center,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands), who offered suggestions regarding the conduct of the review. Society of Behavioral Medicine,
however, has not commissioned, supervised, sanctioned, approved, overseen, reviewed, or exercised editorial control over the
publication’s content. Accordingly, any views of the authors set forth herein are solely those of the authors and not of the
Society of Behavioral Medicine. The following individuals offered suggestions regarding conceptualization and analysis: Drs
Suzanne Miller (Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA), Paul Jacobsen (Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL), and Karen Mustian
(University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY). Dr Jennifer Duffecy (Northwestern University, Chicago, IL) maintained
and provided technical support for the electronic database. Mr Tenbroeck Smith of the American Cancer Society supported a
web site for sharing of articles. Several authors of the articles reviewed herein provided data and responded to questions
regarding their trials. The authors express their gratitude to these organizations and individuals.
</p>