Suppr超能文献

高级别胶质瘤患者的痛苦筛查:多中心整群随机对照试验中与结构化临床访谈相关的诊断准确性

Distress screening in patients with high-grade glioma: diagnostic accuracy in relation to a structured clinical interview in a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Kuchen Robert, Singer Susanne, Schranz Melanie, Doerner Lorenz, Rieger David, Steinbach Joachim P, Ronellenfitsch Michael W, Voss Martin, Kessler Almuth F, Nickl Vera, Misch Martin, Onken Julia Sophie, Rapp Marion, Nadji-Ohl Minou, Mehlitz Marcus, Meixensberger Jürgen, Fehrenbach Michael Karl, Keric Naureen, Ringel Florian, Coburger Jan, Lucas Carolin Weiß, Wehinger Jens, Schmidt-Graf Friederike, Tatagiba Marcos, Tabatabai Ghazaleh, Hippler Melina, Renovanz Mirjam

机构信息

Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Comprehensive Cancer Center Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (CCC-MV), Department of Quality of Life in Oncology University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

出版信息

Support Care Cancer. 2025 Jul 31;33(8):737. doi: 10.1007/s00520-025-09810-1.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Structured clinical interviews, such as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), are considered the gold standard for diagnosing mental disorders but are challenging in routine clinical use due to their length. Therefore, screening instruments to identify the need for further assessment are required. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) screens for psychological distress, while the Emotional Functioning (EF) scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core (EORTC QLQ-C30) assesses emotional functioning. Both are frequently used in clinical routine. Additionally, three brief screening questions (TSQ), specifically developed for patients with glioma and integrated into doctor-patient consultations, may also be used for screening. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of the three tools to identify patients with psychiatric comorbidities as diagnosed by the SCID.

METHODS

Using data from glioma patients treated at 13 German hospitals participating in a cluster-randomized trial, discriminative abilities were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and corresponding areas under the curve (AUCs). Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated, and hypothesis tests were conducted using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Of the 691 patients interviewed, 31% presented with at least one mental disorder. The EF scale demonstrated the best discriminative ability (AUC 0.70, 95% CI: 0.66-0.74), followed by the DT (AUC 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62-0.76), and the TSQ total score (AUC 0.61, 95% CI: 0.55-0.66).

CONCLUSION

While all three tools performed better than random chance, none demonstrated convincing discriminative ability in identifying psychiatric comorbidities. In practice, screening tools can identify a substantial proportion of patients with mental disorders, however at the cost of a considerable number of false negatives.

摘要

目的

结构化临床访谈,如《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》结构化临床访谈(SCID),被视为诊断精神障碍的金标准,但因其篇幅较长,在常规临床应用中具有挑战性。因此,需要筛选工具来确定是否需要进一步评估。美国国立综合癌症网络苦恼温度计(DT)用于筛查心理苦恼,而欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量问卷核心版(EORTC QLQ-C30)的情绪功能(EF)量表则评估情绪功能。两者均常用于临床常规工作。此外,专门为胶质瘤患者开发并纳入医患咨询的三个简短筛查问题(TSQ)也可用于筛查。本研究旨在评估这三种工具识别由SCID诊断出的合并精神疾病患者的能力。

方法

利用来自参与一项整群随机试验的13家德国医院治疗的胶质瘤患者的数据,使用受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线及相应的曲线下面积(AUC)评估鉴别能力。估计置信区间(CI),并使用自抽样法进行假设检验。

结果

在接受访谈的691名患者中,31%至少患有一种精神障碍。EF量表显示出最佳鉴别能力(AUC为0.70,95%CI:0.66 - 0.74),其次是DT(AUC为0.69,95%CI:0.62 - 0.76),TSQ总分的AUC为0.61(95%CI:0.55 - 0.66)。

结论

虽然这三种工具的表现均优于随机猜测,但在识别合并精神疾病方面均未表现出令人信服的鉴别能力。在实践中,筛查工具可以识别出相当一部分精神障碍患者,然而代价是会出现大量假阴性结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/43ef/12313720/0ebce31db952/520_2025_9810_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验