Treatment of depression in adults with cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a leading cause of disease burden worldwide and is especially problematic in people with chronic diseases, including cancer. Although depression can be effectively treated in the general population using antidepressant medication and psychological treatments, these treatments may have different benefits and harms in cancer patients. Previous reviews have not adequately addressed this topic. We therefore aimed to determine which, if any, treatments are effective for patients with diagnoses of both cancer and depression. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of relevant randomized controlled trials identified through searches of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). RESULTS: Seven relatively small trials met the selection criteria. These provided some evidence that antidepressant medication, given alone or in combination with a psychological treatment, may be effective. We found no good evidence for psychological treatments given alone or for any other forms of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence from clinical trials to guide the treatment of cancer patients with a diagnosis of depression, especially for psychological treatments. High quality trials of treatments for depression in patients with cancer are urgently needed.

Cost-effectiveness of combining systematic identification and treatment of co-morbid major depression for people with chronic diseases: the example of cancer.

BACKGROUND: Co-morbid major depression occurs in approximately 10% of people suffering from a chronic medical condition such as cancer. Systematic integrated management that includes both identification and treatment has been advocated. However, we lack information on the cost-effectiveness of this combined approach, as published evaluations have focused solely on the systematic (collaborative care) treatment stage. We therefore aimed to use the best available evidence to estimate the cost-effectiveness of systematic integrated management (both identification and treatment) compared with usual practice, for patients attending specialist cancer clinics. METHOD: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model structured to reflect both the identification and treatment processes. Evidence was taken from reviews of relevant clinical trials and from observational studies, together with data from a large depression screening service. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken to determine the effects of variations in depression incidence rates, time horizons and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Systematic integrated depression management generated more costs than usual practice, but also more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £11,765 per QALY. This finding was robust to tests of uncertainty and variation in key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic integrated management of co-morbid major depression in cancer patients is likely to be cost-effective at widely accepted threshold values and may be a better way of generating QALYs for cancer patients than some existing medical and surgical treatments. It could usefully be applied to other chronic medical conditions.