ABSTRACT
Atypical and melancholic subtypes of depression based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) IV are important concepts, especially for biological psychiatry. The aim of this study was to determine whether the symptoms used for the diagnoses of atypical and melancholic depression can distinguish these subtypes during pregnancy. A modified version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV (SCID interview) was used that allowed assessment of all DSM IV symptoms of melancholic and atypical depression with depressed and non-depressed women in pregnancy. A Swiss cohort of 449 women was interviewed. Four diagnostic groups were compared: women with melancholic, atypical or non specified depression, and those without depression. Seventeen per cent of the cohort met SCID criteria for a depressive episode of depression at least once in pregnancy, with melancholic depression 2.4%, atypical depression 4.4% and non specified depression 10.2%. Many of the symptoms used to distinguish atypical and melancholic depression did not discriminate between these groups during pregnancy. However some, such as mood reactivity, distinct quality of mood and sleep pattern, did discriminate. Differential diagnosis between melancholic and atypical depression in pregnancy needs to be based on pregnancy specific definitions. The possible therapeutic consequences and the neurobiological basis for these findings warrant further research.
Subject(s)
Depressive Disorder/diagnosis , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Pregnancy Complications/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications/psychology , Adult , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , PregnancyABSTRACT
Pregnancy and the postpartum may affect symptoms of depression. However it has not yet been tested how the symptoms used for the DSM IV diagnosis of depression discriminate depressed from non depressed women perinatally. A modified version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV (SCID interview) was used that allowed assessment of all associated DSM IV symptoms of depression with depressed and non depressed women in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Loss of appetite was not associated with depression either ante or postnatally. The antenatal symptom pattern was different from the postnatal. The sensitivity of the symptoms ranged from 0.7% to 51.6%, and specificity from 61.3% to 99.1%. The best discriminating symptoms were motor retardation/agitation and concentration antenatally, and motor retardation/agitation, concentration and fatigue postnatally. Depression in pregnancy and postpartum depression show significantly different symptom profiles. Appetite is not suitable for the diagnosis of depression in the perinatal period.
Subject(s)
Depression, Postpartum/diagnosis , Depression/diagnosis , Maternal Behavior/psychology , Postpartum Period/psychology , Pregnancy Complications/diagnosis , Adult , Anxiety , Depression/epidemiology , Depression, Postpartum/epidemiology , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Female , Humans , Interpersonal Relations , Life Change Events , Pregnancy , Prenatal Care/methods , Prenatal Diagnosis/methods , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Psychometrics , Risk Factors , Social Support , Surveys and Questionnaires , Switzerland/epidemiology , Young AdultABSTRACT
Previous studies in small series of patients with invasive breast cancer suggested a prognostic value of Ep-CAM overexpression in primary tumor tissue. To corroborate these findings, we performed a retrospective analysis of Ep-CAM expression using a tissue microarray containing tissue specimens from a large patient set. Ep-CAM expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in breast cancer tissue from 1715 patients with documented raw survival data. High level Ep-CAM expression (overexpression) was found in 41.7% of tumor samples, low level expression was found in 48.0% and no expression in 10.3% of tumor samples. Ep-CAM expression predicted poor overall survival in this patient cohort (p < 0.0001). Overall survival decreased significantly with increasing Ep-CAM expression. However, in this patient sample Ep-CAM expression was not an independent prognostic marker by multivariate analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed that Ep-CAM expression was a prognostic marker in node-positive (p < 0.0001) but not in node-negative (p = 0.58) breast cancer patients. Intriguingly, Ep-CAM expression was predictive for a dismal prognosis in patients receiving adjuvant cytotoxic (p = 0.03) or hormonal therapy (p < 0.0001) but not in untreated patients (p = 0.41). In summary, this study provides strong evidence that expression of Ep-CAM is a powerful marker of poor prognosis in node-positive invasive breast carcinoma and a potential predictive marker of sensitivity to adjuvant hormonal and/or cytotoxic treatment modalities.
