Inflammation-induced activation of the indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase pathway: Relevance to cancer-related fatigue.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common complication of cancer and its treatment that can significantly impair quality of life. Although the specific mechanisms remain poorly understood, inflammation is now considered to be a distinct component of CRF in addition to effects of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and other factors. One key biological pathway that may link inflammation and CRF is indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO). Induced by inflammatory stimuli, IDO catabolizes tryptophan to kynurenine (KYN), which is subsequently converted into neuroactive metabolites. Here we summarize current knowledge concerning the relevance of the IDO pathway to CRF, including activation of the IDO pathway in cancer patients and, as a consequence, accumulation of neurotoxic KYN metabolites and depletion of serotonin in the brain. Because IDO inhibitors are already being evaluated as therapeutic agents in cancer, the elucidation of the relationship between IDO activation and CRF in cancer patients may lead to novel diagnostic and clinical approaches to managing CRF and its debilitating consequences.

Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Several practice guidelines recommend routine screening for psychological distress in cancer care. The objective was to evaluate the effect of screening cancer patients for psychological distress by assessing the (1) effectiveness of interventions to reduce distress among patients identified as distressed; and (2) effects of screening for distress on distress outcomes. METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched through April 6, 2011 with manual searches of 45 relevant journals, reference list review, citation tracking of included articles, and trial registry reviews through June 30, 2012. Articles in any language on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared treatment for patients with psychological distress to placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); or (2) assessed the effect of screening on psychological distress in a RCT. RESULTS: There were 14 eligible RCTs for treatment of distress, and 1 RCT on the effects of screening on patient distress. Pharmacological, psychotherapy and collaborative care interventions generally reduced distress with small to moderate effects. One study investigated effects of screening for distress on psychological outcomes, and it found no improvement. CONCLUSION: Treatment studies reported modest improvement in distress symptoms, but only a single eligible study was found on the effects of screening cancer patients for distress, and distress did not improve in screened patients versus those receiving usual care. Because of the lack of evidence of beneficial effects of screening cancer patients for distress, it is premature to recommend or mandate implementation of routine screening.

Who provides psychosocial follow-up care for post-treatment cancer survivors? A survey of medical oncologists and primary care physicians.

PURPOSE: Addressing psychosocial needs, including key components of psychologic distress, physical symptoms, and health promotion, is vital to cancer follow-up care. Yet little is known about who provides psychosocial care. This study examined physician-reported practices regarding care of post-treatment cancer survivors. We sought to characterize physicians who reported broad involvement in (ie, across key components of care) and shared responsibility for psychosocial care. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (n = 1,130) and primary care physicians (PCPs; n = 1,021) were surveyed regarding follow-up care of breast and colon cancer survivors. RESULTS: Approximately half of oncologists and PCPs (52%) reported broad involvement in psychosocial care. Oncologist and PCP confidence, beliefs about who is able to provide psychosocial support, and preferences for shared responsibility for care predicted broad involvement. However, oncologists' and PCPs' perceptions of who provides specific aspects of psychosocial care differed (P < .001); both groups saw themselves as the main providers. Oncologists' confidence, PCPs' beliefs about who is able to provide psychosocial support, and oncologist and PCP preference for models other than shared care were inversely associated with a shared approach to care. CONCLUSION: Findings that some providers are not broadly involved in psychosocial care and that oncologists and PCPs differ in their beliefs regarding who provides specific aspects of care underscore the need for better care coordination, informed by the respective skills and desires of physicians, to ensure needs are met. Interventions targeting physician confidence, beliefs about who is able to provide psychosocial support, and preferred models for survivorship care may improve psychosocial care delivery.

Depression screening and patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes. METHODS: Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT. RESULTS: There were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: The one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. Depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care.

Finding what is not there: unwarranted claims of an effect of psychosocial intervention on recurrence and survival.

In a recently published randomized trial, Andersen et al. claimed to observe a reduced risk of recurrence and improved survival among women with early stage breast cancer who were assigned to a psychological intervention versus an assessment-only group. Anderson et al. concluded that "psychological intervention, as delivered and studied here, can improve survival." The current commentary challenges that conclusion on methodological and statistical grounds, noting that the study by Andersen et al. was not designed to assess survival and used methods that capitalized on chance, making it highly unlikely that their claims could be replicated. No other study designed to assess whether psychosocial intervention provides a survival benefit for cancer patients has ever demonstrated such an effect; and, currently, there is no support for the hypothesis that survival benefits can be attributed to psychosocial intervention. The authors of this commentary argue that much needs to be learned at the more basic biobehavioral level about the impact of stress or psychological factors on tumor biology before even considering whether large clinical trials are warranted. In addition, making the claim that psychological interventions improve survival is not evidence-based, is potentially harmful, and detracts from the potential significant benefits of psychological interventions related to quality of life.

Behavioral oncology and the war on cancer: partnering with biomedicine.

The call for interdisciplinary research in the war on cancer has escalated over the past several years. Behavioral science has played a key role in cancer control, and several exciting opportunities exist and will develop with the ongoing significant advances made in biomedical science. The current article briefly reviews the maturity of behavioral science in the areas of prevention, early detection, and survivorship and how the partnership of behavioral and biomedical science can effectively impact cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality.

Meeting Report: Fifth Annual AACR Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research.

Addressing genetics, risk modeling, molecular targets for chemoprevention, clinical prevention trials, behavioral prevention research, public policy, and more, the Fifth Annual International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, held in Boston, Massachusetts, in November 2006, added an outstanding new chapter to the landmark AACR Frontiers program for advancing the science and practice of cancer prevention throughout the world.

Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception.

Cancer risk perceptions are a key predictor of risk-reduction practices, health behaviors, and processing of cancer information. Nevertheless, patients and the general public (as well as health care providers) exhibit a number of errors and biases in the way they think about risk, such that their risk perceptions and decisions deviate greatly from those prescribed by normative decision models and by experts in risk assessment. For example, people are more likely to engage in screening behaviors such as mammography when faced with loss-based messages than gain-framed messages, and they often ignore the base rate of a given disease when assessing their own risk of obtaining this disease. In this article, we review many of the psychological processes that underlie risk perception and discuss how these processes lead to such deviations. Among these processes are difficulties with use of numerical information (innumeracy), cognitive processes (eg, use of time-saving heuristics), motivational factors (eg, loss and regret aversion), and emotion. We conclude with suggestions for future research in the area, as well as implications for improving the elicitation and communication of personal cancer risk.

Measurement of psychological factors associated with genetic testing for hereditary breast, ovarian and colon cancers.

Despite numerous individual studies of psychological factors (depression, anxiety, distress) related to genetic testing for inherited cancer syndromes (CGT), there has been no systematic review of the psychological factors are measured among individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast, ovarian, or colon cancer. Our review provides an analysis of psychological factors in studies of CGT and discusses the instruments most commonly used to measure them. We performed a literature search using three major OVID databases from 1993 to January 2003. In the 19 studies that met our inclusion criteria, the most commonly assessed psychological factors were distress, anxiety, and depression. These factors were most often measured by the impact of event scale (IES), the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI), and the Centers for Epidemiologic Studies and Depression scale (CES-D), respectively. Our results show deficits in the existing body of literature on psychological factors associated with CGT including limited documentation of psychometrics and variability in instrumentation.