Presented in part at the Society of Behavioral Medicine annual meeting in Baltimore, MD in April 2004.
Differences in patterns of depression after treatment for breast cancer†
Article first published online: 12 AUG 2005
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume 15, Issue 5, pages 398–406, May 2006
How to Cite
Deshields, T., Tibbs, T., Fan, M.-Y. and Taylor, M. (2006), Differences in patterns of depression after treatment for breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15: 398–406. doi: 10.1002/pon.962
- Issue published online: 4 MAY 2006
- Article first published online: 12 AUG 2005
- Manuscript Accepted: 15 JUN 2005
- Manuscript Received: 1 FEB 2005
- Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation
- Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center
- breast cancer;
- quality of life;
- end of treatment;
- psychological adjustment;
Depression is a significant problem for some breast cancer survivors after the end of treatment. This study assessed depression using the CES-D for 84 breast cancer patients at the conclusion of radiation treatment, and at 3 and 6 months post-treatment. Based on the pattern of CES-D scores, patients were divided into five groups: (1) Stay Depressed (scores above clinical cutoff for depression at all timepoints); (2) Recover (above threshold at baseline, but below at follow-up); (3) Become Depressed (below threshold at baseline, but above at follow-up); (4) Never Depressed (below threshold at all times); and (5) Vacillate (none of the above patterns). This study examined the relationships between depression groups and a variety of medical, demographic, and psychological measures, including anxiety and quality of life (QOL). Number of children at home significantly distinguished the groups, with the Become Depressed group having more children and the Vacillate group having fewer children. Anxiety levels were different among the groups, with Recover and Never Depressed groups having consistently lower anxiety scores. QOL scores also distinguished the groups in that Never Depressed patients demonstrated better QOL than all other groups. The findings have implications for understanding resilience in cancer patients. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.