Biomarker opportunities in the treatment of cancer-related depression.

Depression comorbid with cancer is common and associated with a host of negative health outcomes. The inflammatory basis of depression is a growing area of research in cancer, focused on how stressors transduce into inflammation and contribute to the emergence of depression. In this review, we synthesize inflammatory biomarker associations with both depression and the currently available pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies in cancer, underscoring the need for expanding research on anti-inflammatory agents with antidepressant effects. Modulation of inflammatory neuroimmune pathways can slow tumor progression and reduce metastases. Biomarkers associated with depression in cancer may help with diagnosis and treatment monitoring, as well as inform research on novel drug targets to potentially improve cancer survival.

Screening for Distress and Health Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer.

Head and neck cancers (HNC) have higher rates of emotional distress than other cancer types and the general population. This paper compares the prevalence of emotional distress in HNC across various distress screening measures and examines whether significant distress or distress screening are associated with cancer-related survival. A retrospective observational cohort design was employed, with data collected from the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) and linkages to administrative databases from 2010 to 2016. Descriptive and prevalence data were reported using multiple concurrently administered distress tools, including the Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 (GAD-7), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-revised (ESAS-r), and MD Anderson Symptom Index-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Across measures, 7.8 to 28.1% of the sample reported clinically significant emotional distress, with PHQ-9 and GAD-7 identifying lowest prevalence of moderate/severe distress, and the ultrashort distress screens within ESAS-r and MDASI-HN performing equivalently. Cox hazards models were used in univariate and multivariate survival analyses. ESAS depression (≥4), but not anxiety, was associated with increased risk of cancer-related mortality and patient completion of DART was associated with greater cancer-related survival. The findings underscore the importance of implementing routine distress screening for HNC populations and the utility of ultra-brief screening measures.

Suicide Risk Screening and Suicide Prevention in Patients With Cancer.

Background: Suicide rates are up to 4 times greater in cancer compared with the general population, yet best practices for institutional suicide prevention are unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the association between suicide risk screening (SRS), clinician response, and suicide mortality at a comprehensive cancer treatment center. Methods: We conducted a naturalistic, retrospective cohort study of patients attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, where routine screening for suicidal intent within the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART-SRS) was implemented in 2010. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to evaluate the impact of DART-SRS completion on suicide mortality from 2005 to 2014. Chart audits were conducted for clinician response to suicidality, and crude suicide rates over the study period were analyzed. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Among 78 650 cancer patients, 89 (0.1%) died by suicide, of whom only 4 (4.5%) had completed DART-SRS. Among DART-SRS completers (n = 14 517), 69 (0.5%) reported suicidal intent, none of whom died by suicide. DART-SRS completion was associated with increased clinician response to suicidality (17.4% vs 6.7%, P = .04), more psychosocial service usage (30.5% vs 18.3%, P < .001), and lower suicide mortality (hazard ratio = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.31). Crude suicide rates at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were lower in patients whose first contact year was after DART-SRS implementation. Conclusion: DART-SRS completion is associated with lower suicide mortality and increased access to psychosocial care, but patients who did not complete DART-SRS were at highest suicide risk. Further research is needed to identify mechanisms to ensure psychosocial and suicidality assessment in cancer patients who do not complete SRS.

Symptom screening for constipation in oncology: getting to the bottom of the matter.

PURPOSE: This study seeks to determine whether specific screening for constipation will increase the frequency of clinician response within the context of an established symptom screening program. METHODS: A "constipation" item was added to routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) screening in gynecologic oncology clinics during a 7-week trial period, without additional constipation-specific training. Chart audits were then conducted to determine documentation of assessment and intervention for constipation in three groups of patients, those who completed (1) ESAS (n = 477), (2) ESAS-C with constipation (n = 435), and (3) no ESAS (n = 511). RESULTS: Among patients who were screened for constipation, 17% reported moderate to severe symptoms. Greater constipation severity increased the likelihood of documented assessment (Z = 2.37, p = .018) and intervention (Z = 1.99, p = .048). Overall rates of documented assessment were 36%, with the highest assessment rate in the no ESAS group (χ2 = 9.505, p = .006), a group with the highest proportion of late-stage disease. No difference in the rate of assessment was found between the ESAS and ESAS-C groups. Overall rates for documentation of intervention were low, and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Specific screening for constipation within an established screening program did not increase the documentation rate for constipation assessment or intervention. The inclusion of specific symptoms in multi-symptom screening initiatives should be carefully evaluated in terms of added value versus patient burden. Care pathways should include guidance on triaging results from multi-symptom screening, and clinicians should pay particular attention to patients who are missed from screening altogether, as they may be the most symptomatic group.