SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 8 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 184 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychedelics as an intervention for psychological, existential distress in terminally ill patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Depression, Anxiety, and Other Mental Disorders in Patients With Cancer in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JCO global oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Antidepressant use and colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality: A dose-response meta analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- [Depression, anxiety, delirium and desire to die in palliative care : Recommendations of the S3 guideline on palliative care for patients with incurable cancer].Der Nervenarzt · 2020Guideline
- Herbal medicine for depression and anxiety: A systematic review with assessment of potential psycho-oncologic relevance.Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2018Pooled it
- Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical Factors as a Component of the Personalized Treatment Approach to Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: a Systematic Literature Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions to improve screening and appropriate referral of patients with cancer for psychosocial distress: systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Rapid and sustained symptom reduction following psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2016Trial
- Psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized double-blind trial.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2016Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Remediation for Depressive Symptoms among Cancer Patients: Protocol for a Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2026Article
- Improving access to psilocybin-assisted therapy: barriers, challenges, and recommendations.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Supporting Meaningful Choices: A Decision Aid for Individuals Facing Existential Distress and Considering Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Radiation therapy patients' interest in psychedelic-assisted therapy: results of a survey.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Potential Drug Interactions Between Psychotropics and Intravenous Chemotherapeutics Used by Patients With Cancer.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2022Article
- A systematic review of pharmacologic treatment efficacy for depression in older patients with cancer.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2022Review
- Complex Effects of Sertraline and Citalopram on In Vitro Murine Breast Cancer Proliferation and on In Vivo Progression and Anxiety Level.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMajor depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.
objectivesTo assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage). SEARCH
methodsWe searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN
resultsWe retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity. AUTHORS'
conclusionsDespite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.
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.