Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:42:34.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cancer diagnosis and suicide outcomes: prevalence and risk meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2022

G. Peviani*
Affiliation:
University of Milano-Bicocca , Department Of Psychology, Milan, Italy
D. Casu
Affiliation:
University of Milano-Bicocca , Department Of Psychology, Milan, Italy
W. Mansi
Affiliation:
University of Milano-Bicocca , Department Of Psychology, Milan, Italy
M. De Prisco
Affiliation:
University School of Medicine Federico II, Section Of Psychiatry - Department Of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences And Dentistry, Naples, Italy
F. Madeddu
Affiliation:
University of Milano-Bicocca , Department Of Psychology, Milan, Italy
J. López-Castroman
Affiliation:
Nimes University Hospital, Psychiatry, Nîmes, France
M. Fornaro
Affiliation:
University School of Medicine Federico II, Section Of Psychiatry - Department Of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences And Dentistry, Naples, Italy
R. Calati
Affiliation:
University of Milano-Bicocca , Department Of Psychology, Milan, Italy Nimes University Hospital, Psychiatry, Nîmes, France
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Available meta-analytic evidence suggests an increased risk of suicide among cancer patients, although most of the reports focused on the sole suicide death (SD) outcome and they are usually hampered by significant between-study heterogeneity.

Objectives

The present meta-analysis aimed at assessing the prevalence and risk rates of SD, suicide attempt (SA), and suicidal ideation (SI) among cancer patients.

Methods

Systematic search up to April 2021 of observational studies documenting cancer and suicide outcomes associations. Pooled prevalence estimates, odd ratios (ORs), risk ratios (RRs), and hazard ratios (HRs) of SD, SA, and SI were computed according to the random-effects model. SD prevalence underwent cumulative and sub-group analyses for different variables. Risk estimates underwent sensitivity analysis for study design.

Results

Overall, thirty-nine studies were included. A higher risk of SD based on HR, SA based on OR and HR, and SI based on each measure was recorded among cancer patients versus controls. OR and RR of SD were not significant. Pooled prevalence rates of SD, SA and SI among cancer patients were 1.9% (1.1-3.1%), 1.4% (0.3-7.1%), and 9.1% (5.8-14.0%), respectively. Although high between-study heterogeneity held upon sensitivity and sub-group analyses, the overall message brought by risk analyses likewise held true. Age, country, study design, cancer type, sample size, cases type and comparison affected SD prevalence estimates in cancer patients. SD prevalence decreased over time.

Conclusions

Cancer patients face higher risk for SA and SI versus controls. SD’ results were controversial. Cancer patients have higher prevalence rates of suicide outcomes compared to the general population.

Disclosure

No significant relationships.

Type
Abstract
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.