Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2012
Slow versus standard up-titration of paroxetine for the treatment of depression in cancer patients: a pilot study.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Impact of mental health on burden of illness, septicemia and mortality among patients hospitalized for cancer.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- A systematic review of pharmacologic treatment efficacy for depression in older patients with cancer.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the tolerability and efficacy of two different titrations of paroxetine (slow and standard) in a population of cancer patients with depression.
methodsThis randomized open trial included 30 cancer patients with depression (major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, or adjustment disorder with depressed mood) and aimed to compare the safety of slow up-titration (arm A) versus standard up-titration (arm B) of paroxetine chlorhydrate. In both arms, the maximum final dose was 20 mg/day. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 2, 4, and 8 weeks with rating scales for depression and anxiety (MADRS, HADS, HAM-A, CGI), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-30), and side effects (DOTES, SIDE).
resultsThirty consecutive cancer patients (F = 21; M = 9) meeting DSM-IV TR criteria for mood disorders (MD) were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to slow or standard paroxetine titration. Both treatment groups showed a significant mood improvement (change in MADRS total score) from baseline to end point (arm A-F(2,18) = 33.68 p < 0.001; arm B-F(2,12) = 6.97 p < 0.005). A significantly higher rate of patients in arm A compared with arm B showed no side effects after 2 weeks (40% vs. 6.7%, respectively). A multinomial logistic regression confirmed such differences between arms (chi square = 20.89 p = 0.004). The self-evaluating scale (SIDE) confirmed this difference: 60% of subjects in arm B perceived side effects compared to only 11.1% of patients in arm A.
conclusionsThe results of this study suggest that slow paroxetine up-titration is better tolerated and at least as effective as the standard paroxetine up-titration in cancer patients with depression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.