Screening young adult cancer survivors with the PROMIS Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-SF): Comparison with a structured clinical diagnostic interview

Background The current study was conducted to evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-SF) as a screening measure for young adult cancer survivors (YACS) compared with a structured diagnostic interview. Methods A total of 249 YACS (aged 18-40 years) completed the PROMIS-D-SF and Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (SCID). Based on the SCID, participants were classified as having: 1) an SCID depression diagnosis; 2) depression symptoms without an SCID diagnosis; or 3) no depression symptoms. Receiver operating characteristic analyses evaluated PROMIS-D-SF and SCID concordance and the sensitivity and specificity of PROMIS-D-SF cutoff t -scores. Results The PROMIS-D-SF had overall good agreement with the SCID for both depression diagnosis (area under the curve, 0.89) and the presence of depressive symptoms (area under the curve, 0.83). A PROMIS-D-SF cutoff t-score of >= 53.2 came closest to meeting study criteria for detecting a SCID depression diagnosis (sensitivity >= 0.85 and specificity >= 0.75), with a sensitivity of 0.81 and a specificity of 0.74. For identifying survivors with depression symptoms, a t-score cutoff value of 49.4 was found to have slightly superior sensitivity (0.84) and inferior specificity (0.64). In hypothetical screening examples, these cutoff scores led to moderate levels of missed cases (15%-19%) and a high percentage of clinical referrals that were unnecessary by SCID criteria (56%-70%). Conclusions The PROMIS-D-SF demonstrated moderately strong concordance with depressive diagnoses and symptoms measured by the SCID, but cutoff t-scores did not meet study criteria for clinical screening. The PROMIS-D-SF may be useful for assessing depression in YACS, but the limitations in its sensitivity and specificity identified in the current study are likely to limit its usefulness as a stand-alone screening instrument in this population.