Hartung Tim J, Friedrich Michael, Johansen Christoffer, Wittchen Hans-Ulrich, Faller Herman, Koch Uwe, Brähler Elmar, Härter Martin, Keller Monika, Schulz Holger, Wegscheider Karl, Weis Joachim, Mehnert Anja
Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Section of Psychosocial Oncology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Oncology Clinic, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cancer. 2017 Nov 1;123(21):4236-4243. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30846. Epub 2017 Jun 27.
Depression screening in patients with cancer is recommended by major clinical guidelines, although the evidence on individual screening tools is limited for this population. Here, the authors assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2 established screening instruments: the depression modules of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D), in a representative sample of patients with cancer.
This multicenter study was conducted with a proportional, stratified, random sample of 2141 patients with cancer across all major tumor sites and treatment settings. The PHQ-9 and HADS-D were assessed and compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition diagnosis of major depressive disorder using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Oncology as the criterion standard.
The diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 and HADS-D was fair for diagnosing major depressive disorder, with areas under the ROC curves of 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.79) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.77), respectively. The 2 questionnaires did not differ significantly in their areas under the ROC curves (P = .15). The PHQ-9 with a cutoff score ≥7 had the best screening performance, with a sensitivity of 83% (95% confidence interval, 78%-89%) and a specificity of 61% (95% confidence interval, 59%-63%). The American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline screening algorithm had a sensitivity of 44% (95% confidence interval, 36%-51%) and a specificity of 84% (95% confidence interval, 83%-85%).
In patients with cancer, the screening performance of both the PHQ-9 and the HADS-D was limited compared with a standardized diagnostic interview. Costs and benefits of routinely screening all patients with cancer should be weighed carefully. Cancer 2017;123:4236-4243. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
主要临床指南推荐对癌症患者进行抑郁筛查,尽管针对该人群的个体筛查工具的证据有限。在此,作者评估并比较了两种既定筛查工具的诊断准确性:9项患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)的抑郁模块和医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS-D),研究对象为具有代表性的癌症患者样本。
本多中心研究采用比例分层随机抽样法,选取了2141例患有各种主要肿瘤类型且处于不同治疗阶段的癌症患者。以《国际肿瘤诊断访谈问卷》作为标准,评估并比较了PHQ-9和HADS-D在诊断准确性及用于诊断《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第4版中重度抑郁症的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线方面的表现。
PHQ-9和HADS-D在诊断重度抑郁症方面的诊断准确性一般,ROC曲线下面积分别为0.78(95%置信区间,0.76 - 0.79)和0.75(95%置信区间,0.74 - 0.77)。两种问卷的ROC曲线下面积差异无统计学意义(P = 0.15)。PHQ-9临界值分数≥7时筛查表现最佳,灵敏度为83%(95%置信区间,78% - 89%),特异度为61%(95%置信区间,59% - 63%)。美国临床肿瘤学会指南筛查算法的灵敏度为44%(95%置信区间,36% - 51%),特异度为84%(95%置信区间,83% - 85%)。
在癌症患者中,与标准化诊断访谈相比,PHQ-9和HADS-D的筛查表现均有限。应仔细权衡对所有癌症患者进行常规筛查的成本与收益。《癌症》2017年;123:4236 - 4243。© 2017美国癌症协会