Primary prevention of depression in head and neck cancer patients: a scoping review

To conduct a scoping review of the literature on psychological interventions directed to identify primary prevention strategies for depression among adult head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

Systematic searches were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review including relevant studies within the PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases. Two authors independently screened the searches and reviewed the included articles according to the predetermined eligibility criteria based on the PICOS format. Studies included subjects with previous or current diagnosis of depression were excluded. The risk of bias assessment of these trials was conducted following the Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. The search was repeated prior to submission to ensure all current articles meeting criteria were included.

The search yielded 875 studies. The title and abstract screen, followed by the review of full texts identified five articles that met inclusion criteria. Four were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and the fifth was a non-randomized but controlled study. Different psychosocial interventions were used, including psycho-educational interventions, psychosocial counseling, and pharmacotherapy. All studies established the diagnosis of depression or screened for the diagnosis using standardized psychiatric assessment tools, either Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria or validated patient reported outcome measures. The average follow-up periods after intervention was 9.8 months. There was a significant decrease in the incidence of depression or depressive symptoms favoring the intervention group in three out of the five studies that were included.

Psychological interventions identified thus far studying primary prevention of depression in HNC patients show promising results. However, the paucity of data and heterogeneity of the interventions challenges the ability to compare the prevention modalities and outcomes. Future well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are recommended to better conclude a result of effectiveness.