Psychological and behavioral symptoms in patients with melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Improved survival rates have made it increasingly important for clinicians to focus on cancer survivorship issues affecting the quality of life of melanoma patients. To provide a comprehensive overview of the disease and treatment-related issues affecting such patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to estimate the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive problems among melanoma patients, both uveal and cutaneous, before, during and after treatment. METHODS: The review was preregistered with PROSPERO (#CRD42020189847) and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of the literature published up until June 2022 was undertaken using PubMed, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two independent reviewers screened 1418 records and quality-rated included studies. The reported prevalence rates of symptoms were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies including a total of 12,400 melanoma patients published between 1992 and 2022 were included. Pooled prevalence rates ranged from 6% to 16% for depression and 7%-30% for anxiety across diagnoses (uveal and cutaneous melanoma) and assessment time points. One third of the patients (35%) reported clinically significant fatigue, 20%-44% had cognitive complaints, while prevalence of sleep disturbance was not reported. Quality assessment indicated that 80% of the studies were of good quality. CONCLUSION: A large body of research shows that depression and anxiety symptoms are prevalent in melanoma patients before, during and after treatment. However, research examining other symptoms known to affect quality of life, such as fatigue, sleep disturbances, and cognitive problems, is still needed.

Sleep During Oncological Treatment - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Associations With Treatment Response, Time to Progression and Survival.

Introduction: Disrupted sleep and sleep-wake activity are frequently observed in cancer patients undergoing oncological treatment. These disruptions are often associated with aggravated symptom burden and diminished health-related quality of life that in turn may compromise treatment adherence and, thus, effectiveness. In addition, disrupted sleep has been linked to carcinogenic processes, which ultimately could result in worse prognostic outcomes. Aims: Our aim was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of studies examining the associations between sleep and sleep-wake activity and prognostic outcomes in cancer patients undergoing oncological treatment. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search of English language papers was undertaken in June 2020 using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently screened 4,879 abstracts. A total of 26 papers were included in the narrative review. Thirteen papers reporting hazard ratios reflecting associations between a dichotomized predictor variable (sleep) and prognostic outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Nineteen of the 26 eligible studies on a total of 7,092 cancer patients reported associations between poorer sleep and poorer response to treatment, shorter time to progression, and/or reduced overall survival, but were highly heterogeneous with respect to the sleep and outcome parameters investigated. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant associations between poor self-reported sleep and reduced overall survival (HR = 1.33 [95% CI 1.09-1.62], k = 11), and shorter time to progression (HR = 1.40 [95% CI 1.23-1.59], k = 3) and between poor objectively assessed sleep and reduced overall survival (HR = 1.74 [95% CI 1.05-2.88], k = 4). Conclusion: The current findings indicate that disturbed sleep during treatment may be a relevant behavioral marker of poor cancer prognosis. The limited number of studies, the common use of single item sleep measures, and potential publication bias highlight the need for further high quality and longitudinal studies.