Use of Distress and Depression Thermometers to Measure Psychosocial Morbidity Among Southern European Cancer Patients

GOALS OF WORK: Recent literature has indicated the need for rapid evaluation of psychosocial issues secondary to cancer. Because of the problems of routine use of psychometric instruments, short instruments such as visual analogue scales or one-item 0-10 scales have been developed as valid assessment alternatives. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A study was conducted to examine the role of two 0-10 scales in measuring emotional stress (distress thermometer, DT) and depressed mood (mood thermometer, MT), respectively, in a multicenter study carried out in southern European countries (Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland). A convenience sample of 312 cancer outpatients completed the DT and MT and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). MAIN RESULTS: DT was more significantly associated HADS anxiety than HADS depression while MT was related both to HADS anxiety and depression. The correlation of MT with HADS was higher than DT. A cutoff point >4 on the DT maximized sensitivity (65%) and specificity (79%) for general psychosocial morbidity while a cutoff >5 identified more severe "caseness" (sensitivity=70%; specificity=73%). On the MT, sensitivity and specificity for general psychosocial morbidity were 85% and 72% by using the cutoff score >3. A score >4 on the MT was associated with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 77% in detecting more severe caseness. CONCLUSIONS: Two simple instruments, the DT and the MT, were found to have acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity in detecting psychosocial morbidity. Compared to the HADS, however, the mood MT performed better than the DT.

Hopelessness and Related Variables among Cancer Patients in the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study (SEPOS).

BACKGROUND: Although hopelessness has been studied in cancer, no data are available in non-English-speaking countries. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to amass data from Southern European countries (Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland) in order to fill this void. METHOD: A group of 312 cancer patients completed the Mini-MAC Hopelessness subscale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Cancer Worry Inventory (CWI), and a six-item Visual Analog scale (VAS) to measure intensity of physical symptoms, general well-being, difficulty in coping with cancer, intensity of social support from close relationships, leisure activity, and support from religious beliefs. RESULTS: Regression analysis indicated that HADS-Depression, VAS Maladaptive Coping and Well-Being, and the CWI explained 42% of the variance. CONCLUSION: Hopelessness in cancer patients seems not exclusively to correspond to depression, but is related to various other psychosocial factors, such as maladaptive coping, as well.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.