Objective: We aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in cancer patients assessed by diagnostic interviews and self‐report instruments, and to study differences in prevalence between type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase.Methods: A literature search was conducted in four databases to select studies on the prevalence of depression among adult cancer patients during or after treatment. A total of 211 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled mean prevalence of depression was calculated using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis.Results: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—depression subscale (HADS‐D) ≥ 8, HADS‐D ≥11, Center for Epidemiologic Studies ≥ 16, and (semi‐)structured diagnostic interviews were used to define depression in 66, 53, 35 and 49 studies, respectively. Respective mean prevalence of depression was 17% (95% CI = 16–19%), 8% (95% CI = 7–9%), 24% (95% CI = 21–26%), and 13% (95% CI = 11–15%) (p < 0.001). Prevalence of depression ranged from 3% in patients with lung cancer to 31% in patients with cancer of the digestive tract, on the basis of diagnostic interviews. Prevalence of depression was highest during treatment 14% (95% CI = 11–17%), measured by diagnostic interviews, and 27% (95% CI = 25–30%), measured by self‐report instruments. In the first year after diagnosis, prevalence of depression measured with diagnostic interviews and self‐report instruments were 9% (95% CI = 7–11%) and 21% (95% CI = 19–24%), respectively, and they were 8% (95% CI = 5–12%) and 15% (95% CI = 13–17%) ≥ 1 year after diagnosis.Conclusions: Pooled mean prevalence of depression in cancer patients ranged from 8% to 24% and differed by the type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase. Future prospective studies should disentangle whether differences in prevalence of depression are caused by differences in the type of instrument, type of cancer or treatment phase. © 2013 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Purpose: To investigate the impact of treatment-related toxicity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with radiotherapy either alone or in combination with chemotherapy or surgery. Patients and Methods: The study sample was composed of 425 disease-free patients. Toxicity was scored according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) late radiation-induced morbidity scoring system. HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. These assessments took place at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after completion of radiotherapy. The analysis was performed using a multivariate analysis of variance. Results: Of the six RTOG scales investigated, two significantly affected self-reported HRQoL, salivary gland (RTOG_xerostomia) and esophagus/pharynx (RTOG_swallowing). Although RTOG_xerostomia was reported most frequently, HRQoL was most affected by RTOG_swallowing, particularly in the first 18 months after completion of radiotherapy. Conclusion: Late radiation-induced toxicity, particularly RTOG_swallowing and RTOG_xerostomia, has a significant impact on the more general dimensions of HRQoL. These findings suggest that the development of new radiation-induced delivery techniques should not only focus on reduction of the dose to the salivary glands, but also on anatomic structures that are involved in swallowing.

This individual patient data meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and physical function (PF) in patients with cancer, and to identify moderator effects of demographic (age, sex, marital status, education), clinical (body mass index, cancer type, presence of metastasis), intervention-related (intervention timing, delivery mode and duration, and type of control group), and exercise-related (exercise frequency, intensity, type, time) characteristics. Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications. Principle investigators of all 69 eligible trials were requested to share IPD from their study. IPD from 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4519 patients) that evaluated the effects of exercise compared to a usual care, wait-list or attention control group on QoL and PF in adult patients with cancer were retrieved and pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of the exercise on post-intervention outcome values (z-score) adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studies by testing interactions. Exercise significantly improved QoL (β=0.15, 95%CI=0.10;0.20) and PF (β=0.18, 95%CI=0.13;0.23). The effects were not moderated by demographic, clinical or exercise characteristics. Effects on QoL (βdifference_in_effect=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (βdifference_in_effect=0.10, 95%CI=0.01;0.20) were significantly larger for supervised than unsupervised interventions. In conclusion, exercise, and particularly supervised exercise, effectively improves QoL and PF in patients with cancer with different demographic and clinical characteristics during and following treatment. Although effect sizes are small, there is consistent empirical evidence to support implementation of exercise as part of cancer care.

Individuals with cancer and their families assume responsibility for management of cancer as an acute and chronic disease. Yet, cancer lags other chronic diseases in its provision of proactive self-management support in routine, everyday care leaving this population vulnerable to worse health status, long-term disability, and poorer survival. Enabling cancer patients to manage the medical and emotional consequences and lifestyle and work changes due to cancer and treatment is essential to optimizing health and recovery across the continuum of cancer. In this paper, the Global Partners on Self-Management in Cancer puts forth six priority areas for action: Action 1: Prepare patients and survivors for active involvement in care; Action 2: Shift the care culture to support patients as partners in cocreating health and embed self-management support in everyday health-care provider practices and in care pathways; Action 3: Prepare the workforce in the knowledge and skills necessary to enable patients in effective self-management and reach consensus on core curricula; Action 4: Establish and reach consensus on a patient-reported outcome system for measuring the effects of self-management support and performance accountability; Action 5: Advance the evidence and stimulate research on self-management and self-management support in cancer populations; Action 6: Expand reach and access to self-management support programs across care sectors and tailored to diversity of need and stimulation of research to advance knowledge. It is time for a revolution to better integrate self-management support as part of high-quality, person-centered support and precision medicine in cancer care to optimize health outcomes, accelerate recovery, and possibly improve survival.

The population of cancer survivors has grown steadily over the past several decades. Surviving cancer, however, is not synonymous with a life free of problems related to the disease and its treatment. In this paper we provide a brief overview of selected physical and psychosocial health problems prevalent among cancer survivors, namely pain, fatigue, psychological distress and work participation. We also address issues surrounding self-management and e-Health interventions for cancer survivors, and programmes to encourage survivors to adopt healthier lifestyles. Finally, we discuss approaches to assessing health-related quality of life in cancer survivors, and the use of cancer registries in conducting psychosocial survivorship research. We highlight research and practice priorities in each of these areas. While the priorities vary per topic, common themes that emerged included: (1) Symptoms should not be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a cluster of interrelated symptoms. This has implications for both understanding the aetiology of symptoms and for their treatment; (2) Psychosocial interventions need to be evidence-based, and where possible should be tailored to the needs of the individual cancer survivor. Relatively low cost interventions with self-management and e-Health elements may be appropriate for the majority of survivors, with resource intensive interventions being reserved for those most in need; (3) More effort should be devoted to disseminating and implementing interventions in practice, and to evaluating their cost-effectiveness; and (4) Greater attention should be paid to the needs of vulnerable and high-risk populations of survivors, including the socioeconomically disadvantaged and the elderly.