ABSTRACT
Objective
Depression is common among patients with lung cancer, but evidence from large, population‐based studies is limited. This study examined antidepressant use and hospital‐diagnosed depression before and after lung cancer diagnosis in Denmark.
Methods
We conducted a nationwide registry‐based study including all patients diagnosed with lung cancer from 1998 to 2022 and a comparison cohort (1:4 ratio) matched on age, sex, municipality, and marital/cohabiting status. Data on hospital diagnoses and redeemed antidepressant prescriptions were obtained from Danish national registries.
Results
Among 73,930 patients with lung cancer and 293,892 matched comparison subjects, antidepressant use was already higher among lung cancer patients two years before diagnosis (12.7% vs. 9.9%) and increased markedly after diagnosis (23.7% vs. 11.9% 2 years post‐diagnosis, p < 0.001). Among individuals without prior antidepressant use, 8.4% of patients with lung cancer initiated antidepressants within the first year and 13.7% within the second year, compared with 1.9% and 3.4% of controls (p < 0.001). Hospital‐diagnosed depression occurred in 2.1% of lung cancer patients versus 0.8% of controls, with higher rates among females.
Conclusions
Antidepressant use is prevalent before, and rises further after, a lung cancer diagnosis. The difference relative to the comparison cohort was most evident among individuals with no history of antidepressant use. These findings underscore the need for systematic psychosocial assessment and integrated mental health support throughout the lung cancer care pathway.
Keywords: antidepressants, depression, lung cancer, population‐based study, psychosocial care
1. Background
Lung cancer is one of the most common and deadliest cancers worldwide, accounting for a substantial proportion of global cancer incidence and mortality [1]. Historically, survival outcomes have been poor compared with many other major cancer types [2], largely due to late‐stage diagnosis and limited treatment options. However, the overall 5‐year survival for patients with lung cancer—across all stages—now approaches 25% in several countries, leading to a growing population of lung cancer survivors [3, 4].
Several factors have driven these improvements. The increased use of chest computed tomography (CT) has made it more likely that lung cancer is detected incidentally at an earlier stage [5]. In some countries, low‐dose CT (LDCT) screening programs have further supported early diagnosis and increased the number of patients eligible for curative treatment [6, 7, 8]. At the same time, treatment options have developed considerably [9]. For locally advanced disease, concomitant radiochemotherapy has improved outcomes, while in metastatic disease, targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors have extended survival [3].
Survival, however, often comes with long‐term consequences. Many patients live with sequelae from surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or systemic therapies, including fatigue, reduced lung function, neuropathy, and limitations in daily activities [10]. Furthermore, severe somatic comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiac diseases, are common and frequently caused by shared risk factors such as smoking [11]. In addition to physical challenges, the psychological impact of a lung cancer diagnosis is considerable. Anxiety, uncertainty, and emotional distress are common, both before and after treatment completion [12]. Depression, in particular, is a frequent complication and is associated with poorer quality of life, reduced adherence to treatment, and shorter survival [13].
Previous studies have suggested an increased risk of depression among lung cancer survivors, but most have been limited in size and design [14]. Many were based on single‐centre cohorts or self‐reported symptoms, which restricts generalizability [15, 16, 17]. Furthermore, depression is often underdiagnosed in oncology because its symptoms can overlap with cancer‐related fatigue or treatment side effects [18]. As most cases of depression are managed in primary care rather than hospitals, studies relying solely on hospital data are likely to underestimate the true burden [19].
To address these gaps, we conducted a nationwide study including all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Denmark between 1998 and 2022, using comprehensive population‐based registries. Depression was assessed using two complementary sources: redeemed prescriptions for antidepressants and hospital‐based diagnoses of major depressive disorder. Antidepressant use reflects primarily treated depression or psychological distress managed in primary care, whereas hospital diagnoses indicate more severe or clinically confirmed cases. We compared the prevalence of these indicators among patients with lung cancer and with those in a matched cohort from the general population. The primary aim was to quantify antidepressant use before and after lung cancer diagnosis. Secondary aims were to compare depression indicators with the comparison cohort, describe differences in baseline characteristics, and assess the relative contribution of prescription‐based and hospital‐diagnosed depression.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
This was a national retrospective cohort study including all patients with a first‐time diagnosis of lung cancer between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2019, identified in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD‐10) code DC34. As the DNPR contains nationwide hospital data dating back to 1977, complete historical information was available to ensure that all included patients were incident (naïve) cases. The date of the first registered lung cancer diagnosis was defined as the index date.
Each lung cancer patient was matched with up to four individuals from the general Danish population who had no previous lung cancer diagnosis at the time the case was diagnosed. For some cases, only three suitable controls could be identified in the population. Matching criteria included age, sex, marital status, and municipality of residence at the index date. Controls were randomly selected from the Danish Civil Registration System.
Patients and their matched controls were followed from 2 years before to 2 years after the index date, until death or emigration, whichever occurred first. As registry data were available through 2022, all included individuals were eligible for the full 2‐year follow‐up after the index date. Follow‐up time was divided into four discrete 1‐year periods relative to the index date: year −2, year −1, year 1 (starting on the index date), and year 2. A subgroup of patients without prior depression was defined as those with no history of hospital‐diagnosed depression and no antidepressant use in the preceding 2 years.
2.2. Data Sources
Patients were identified through the Danish National Patient Register (DNPR), which has recorded all psychiatric and non‐psychiatric hospital diagnoses nationwide since 1977. Reporting is mandatory and performed by attending physicians, ensuring high completeness and validity of diagnostic information for both clinical and administrative use [20]. The accuracy of lung cancer diagnoses is also high, as evidenced by strong agreement between the Danish Lung Cancer Registry, which is based on DNPR registrations, and the Danish Cancer Registry [21].
Information on medication use was obtained from the Danish Register of Medicinal Product Statistics (DRMPS) [22]. This registry contains detailed data on all prescription drugs dispensed at community pharmacies in Denmark, classified according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) system.
Comorbidity was assessed using the Quan adaptation of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (QCCI) [23]. Scores were categorized as 0, 1, or ≥ 2 comorbidities (excluding lung cancer) based on diagnoses registered within 3 years before inclusion.
Sociodemographic information was retrieved from national administrative registries. Educational attainment was classified according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED): lower (ISCED 0–2), medium (ISCED 3–4), and higher (ISCED 5–8). Employment status was obtained from the Danish Employment Registry [24] and categorized as Employed, Unemployed, Disability Pension, Old‐age pension, or Other (including in education).
2.3. Outcomes
Antidepressant use was identified in the DRMPS. Patients were classified as users if they had at least two prescription collections in the following 2 years, a standard approach that minimizes misclassification from isolated or tentative prescriptions. Individuals were considered users from the date of their second prescription and remained classified as such in subsequent analyses. To quantify treatment intensity and continuity, we utilized the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) and the Percentage of Days Covered (PDC). The DDD is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults, as defined by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. For each prescription, the estimated number of days supplied was calculated by dividing the total amount of active substance dispensed (in mg) by the drug‐specific DDD.
The PDC was calculated as the ratio of the number of days covered by the medication to the number of days in the observation interval (365 days). PDC ranges from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate greater treatment intensity or adherence. For this study, we calculated the mean PDC for confirmed users to compare the continuity of antidepressant use between lung cancer patients and comparison subjects.
The following drug classes and ATC codes were included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; N06AB*), serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; N06AX*), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; N06AA*), and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs; N06AF*). These drug groups encompass the medications most commonly used for the treatment of depression in Denmark. Some of these agents may also be prescribed for other indications, including neuropathic pain or anxiety, but restricting the definition to a narrower set of drugs would risk incomplete capture of antidepressant use. This approach may therefore include some prescriptions not directly related to depression.
Hospital‐based diagnoses of depression were identified in the DNPR using ICD‐10 codes DF32* (single depressive episode) and DF33* (recurrent depressive episodes). Because the DNPR captures only hospital‐based encounters, these diagnoses represent moderate to severe cases assessed in secondary or tertiary care. Most cases of depression are managed solely in primary care and therefore do not appear in DNPR data, underscoring the importance of combining diagnostic codes with prescription information.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Sociodemographic characteristics and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) at the index date were summarized descriptively. Categorical variables were presented as counts and percentages, while age was summarized using means and standard deviations (SD). Differences between lung cancer cases and matched controls were assessed using χ2 tests for categorical variables and t‐tests for age.
Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for collecting antidepressant prescriptions in each of the four follow‐up years (from 2 years before to 2 years after the index date). Lung cancer cases were compared with matched controls using both unadjusted models and models adjusted for educational level (primary education = 1, binary) and CCI (CCI ≥ 1 = 1, binary). Odds ratios and 95% CIs were presented for the case–control contrasts; estimates for the covariates included in the adjusted models were not reported.
All statistical tests were two‐sided with a significance level of 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 TS Level 1M5 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
3. Results
The baseline characteristics of patients with lung cancer and their matched comparison subjects are presented in Table 1. In total, 73,930 patients with lung cancer were identified, with a slight predominance of males (52.9%). Approximately half were aged 70 years or older, and 55.9% were married or cohabiting (data not shown). The comparison cohort consisted of 293,892 individuals.
TABLE 1.
Baseline characteristics of patients with lung cancer and matched comparison subjects.
| Patients with lung cancer, n (%) | Comparison subjects, n (%) | p‐value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total patients | 73,930 (100) | 293,892 (100) | |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 39,105 (52.9) | 155,142 (52.8) | Matched |
| Female | 34,825 (47.1) | 138,750 (47.2) | |
| Age group | |||
| < 40 years | 346 (0.5) | 1349 (0.5) | Matched |
| 40–49 years | 2198 (3.0) | 8700 (3.0) | |
| 50–59 years | 10,102 (13.7) | 40,152 (13.7) | |
| 60–69 years | 22,899 (31.0) | 91,216 (31.0) | |
| 70–79 years | 26,119 (35.3) | 104,176 (35.4) | |
| ≥ 80 years | 12,266 (16.6) | 48,299 (16.4) | |
| Educational attainment a | |||
| Lower (ISCED 0–2) | 35,619 (48.2) | 116,704 (39.7) | < 0.001 |
| Medium (ISCED 3–4) | 25,400 (34.4) | 104,635 (35.6) | |
| Higher (ISCED 5–8) | 8344 (11.3) | 55,046 (18.7) | |
| Unknown | 4567 (6.2) | 17,507 (6.0) | |
| Employment status | |||
| Employed | 11,649 (15.8) | 68,047 (23.2) | < 0.001 |
| Unemployed | 1984 (2.7) | 6055 (2.1) | |
| Disability pension | 6578 (8.9) | 13,696 (4.7) | |
| Other (incl. Education) | 1211 (1.6) | 3479 (1.2) | |
| Old‐age pension | 52,508 (71.0) | 202,615 (68.9) | |
| Comorbidity (QCCI) b | |||
| 0 | 60,292 (81.6) | 271,680 (92.4) | < 0.001 |
| 1 | 9582 (13.0) | 12,656 (4.3) | |
| ≥ 2 | 4056 (5.5) | 9556 (3.3) | |
Educational attainment categorized according to ISCED: lower (0–2), medium (3–4), higher (5–8).
QCCI = Quan adaptation of Charlson Comorbidity Index.
Educational attainment differed markedly between groups. Patients with lung cancer were more often in the lower education category (48.2% vs. 39.7%, p < 0.001) and less frequently in the higher education category (11.3% vs. 18.7%, p < 0.001). Employment status also varied: fewer patients with lung cancer were employed (15.8% vs. 23.2%, p < 0.001), while more received disability pension (8.9% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001).
Comorbidity burden was greater among patients with lung cancer. A smaller proportion had no comorbidity (81.6% vs. 92.4%, p < 0.001), whereas higher proportions had one (13.0% vs. 4.3%) or at least two comorbidities (5.5% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001).
The proportion of antidepressant users among patients with lung cancer and matched comparison subjects in the 2 years before and after diagnosis is shown in Figure 1. Already prior to diagnosis, antidepressant use was more common among patients who were later diagnosed with lung cancer (12.7% vs. 9.9% 2 years before, and 15.2% vs. 10.8% in the year immediately preceding diagnosis; p < 0.001). Following the diagnosis, this difference widened substantially, with 20.6% versus 11.6% in the first year and 23.7% versus 11.9% in the second year after diagnosis (p < 0.001).
FIGURE 1.
Prevalence of antidepressant users 2 years before and after lung cancer diagnosis among patients and matched comparison subjects.
When restricting the analysis to patients and comparison subjects without a prior depression diagnosis or antidepressant use in the 2 years before diagnosis, clear differences still emerged (Figure 2). In the first year after diagnosis, 8.4% of patients with lung cancer, initiated antidepressant treatment compared with 1.9% of comparison subjects, and in the second year the proportions increased to 13.7% versus 3.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). Among those who initiated treatment, the mean percentage of days covered (PDC) with antidepressants was consistently higher in patients with lung cancer, indicating more intensive use. In the first year after diagnosis, the mean PDC was 0.48 for lung cancer patients versus 0.39 for comparison subjects, and in the second year 0.61 versus 0.51, respectively (p < 0.001).
FIGURE 2.
Antidepressant initiation after lung cancer diagnosis among individuals without prior depression or antidepressant use.
We also examined the number of patients with lung cancer and comparison subjects who received a hospital‐based diagnosis of depression, restricted to those with no prior history of depression. Among patients with lung cancer, 2.1% received a depression diagnosis in the hospital setting compared with 0.8% of comparison subjects (Figure 3, p < 0.001). This difference was more pronounced in females than in males: 2.5% versus 1.8% among patients with lung cancer, and 1.0% versus 0.7% among comparison subjects.
FIGURE 3.
Proportion of patients receiving a hospital diagnosis of depression after lung cancer diagnosis, by sex.
As described, patients with lung cancer and comparison subjects differed with respect to education, employment status, and comorbidity. To mitigate the potential influence of these factors, we performed a regression analysis adjusting for education and comorbidity, stratified by sex. As shown in Figure 4, patients with lung cancer who had not previously used antidepressants remained 4–5 times more likely to initiate antidepressant treatment after diagnosis compared with comparison subjects.
FIGURE 4.
Forest plot of crude and adjusted logistic regression models for antidepressant initiation following lung cancer diagnosis versus the comparison cohort. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for developing depression at 1 and 2 years post‐diagnosis. The analysis compares males and females with lung cancer to the comparison cohort. Male sample size Year 1: 175,533; Year 2: 149,9839. Female sample size Year 1: 145,579; Year 2: 128,062. Results are shown for both unadjusted (crude) models and models adjusted for educational attainment and Quan adaptation of Charlson Comorbidity Index.
4. Discussion
In this large, nationwide study including all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Denmark from 1998 to 2022, we found that both the use of antidepressants and the occurrence of hospital‐diagnosed depression were substantially higher among patients with lung cancer compared with matched individuals from the general population. The difference was already apparent before diagnosis and increased markedly afterwards. Among individuals without prior depression or antidepressant use, lung cancer patients were more likely to initiate antidepressant treatment or receive a hospital diagnosis of depression after diagnosis. When adjusting for educational attainment and comorbidity, patients with lung cancer were still 4–5 times more likely to initiate antidepressant treatment. Furthermore, antidepressant users with lung cancer had a higher mean percentage of days covered with antidepressants, indicating more continuous use. Together, these findings highlight a considerable and persistent psychological burden associated with lung cancer that extends beyond the time of diagnosis.
The prevalence of antidepressant use was higher among patients with lung cancer than among comparison subjects, even before the cancer diagnosis. This may partly reflect prodromal symptoms or illness‐related distress occurring before the diagnostic lung cancer evaluation. Early manifestations of lung cancer, such as fatigue, might have been misinterpreted by patients and healthcare professionals as signs of depression [25]. Such misinterpretation could contribute to delayed cancer diagnosis, underscoring the importance of clinical awareness of this potential overlap. The relationship between depressive trajectories and lung cancer outcomes has also been examined in a study based on patients' self‐reported depressive symptoms, which found that both persistent depressive symptoms before and after diagnosis and newly developed depressive symptoms were associated with increased mortality compared with patients reporting no depressive symptoms [26]. Further investigation of within‐group differences in depressive trajectories among patients with lung cancer, as well as their association with survival, treatment provision, and treatment outcomes, remains an important area for future research.
Baseline differences in comorbidity, lower educational attainment, and reduced employment rates [11, 27]—all known risk factors for depression [28]—may also contribute to the higher prevalence of antidepressant use in lung cancer patients. Nevertheless, after adjusting for these factors, regression analyses continued to show significantly higher antidepressant use among patients with lung cancer. It is also possible that the higher rate of registration of depressive diagnoses and prescription of antidepressant treatment reflects increased detection and management due to more frequent healthcare contacts in the lung cancer group. Patients with lung cancer interact extensively with the healthcare system – both for cancer‐related diagnosis and treatment, but also before diagnosis due to their higher burden of comorbid conditions – which may increase the likelihood that depressive symptoms are recognized and treated, creating a surveillance bias. Antidepressant use in this context likely captures a broad spectrum of 'treated distress,' including anxiety and somatic symptom management, rather than solely clinical depression. Second, the diagnosis appears to exacerbate pre‐existing vulnerabilities; given the higher baseline burden of comorbidity and lower socioeconomic status in this population, the stress of lung cancer may act as a tipping point that decompensates these underlying fragilities, necessitating pharmacological support. Moreover, smoking, a known risk factor for both depression and lung cancer [29], could not be accounted for in this study and could have played a major role as a confounder of the association between lung cancer and depressive patterns.
The finding that lung cancer patients were also more likely to receive a hospital‐based diagnosis of depression indicates that the increased risk is not limited to mild or transient depressive symptoms but extends to more severe forms requiring specialized psychiatric care. However, this association may also, at least in part, reflect greater contact with the healthcare system among lung cancer patients, increasing the likelihood of psychiatric referral. Consistently, among those using antidepressants, patients with lung cancer had a higher mean percentage of days covered, suggesting a more sustained or intensive antidepressant treatment after diagnosis. Several factors may contribute to this pattern. Lung cancer has a particularly high symptom burden and often carries a poor prognosis, which can exacerbate psychological distress [30]. In addition, lung cancer–related stigma and self‐blame—especially among individuals with a history of smoking—may further increase vulnerability to depression. Prior research has shown that lung cancer stigma is a unique, disease‐specific contributor to depressed mood and may also act as a barrier to early help‐seeking and screening [31, 32, 33]. The higher antidepressant coverage among patients with lung cancer may also reflect their more frequent interactions with the healthcare system and a greater familiarity with, or acceptance of, pharmacological treatments.
Previous studies of depression in lung cancer have reported widely varying prevalence estimates, often ranging from 30% to 60%, depending on the population studied and the measurement tools used [15, 16, 17, 34]. For example, questionnaire‐based studies have reported depressive symptoms in 38%–58% of patients with lung cancer [15, 16, 17], while studies using structured interviews or screening instruments such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale have shown rates around 40% [34]. In our study, based on physician‐diagnosed depression and prescription data, 23.7% of lung cancer patients collected antidepressants within 2 years after diagnosis. The lower proportion compared with questionnaire‐based studies likely reflects differences in methodology and the fact that patients with mild depression are often managed with non‐pharmacological approaches, which are often accessible in oncological settings. While self‐reported studies may overestimate depression by including transient or subclinical symptoms, registry‐based studies may underestimate it because they rely on clinical recognition and treatment. Overall, these findings suggest that depression in lung cancer remains both underrecognized and undertreated.
4.1. Clinical Implications
This study confirms what smaller studies have suggested; depression is common among patients with lung cancer. However, our study adds important new insights by looking at the entire population over a long period. Specifically, we show that nearly one in four patients with no history of mental illness starts taking antidepressants after their diagnosis. This highlights just how stressful the cancer experience is, even for people who were previously psychologically healthy. We also found that antidepressant use begins to rise even before the official cancer diagnosis.
These findings send a clear message to clinicians. The high rate of antidepressant use proves that patients are in distress, but medication alone may not be the full answer. Since these drugs can be used for depression, anxiety, or even pain, doctors need to talk to patients to understand exactly what they are struggling with. Antidepressant medication is often not enough, especially for vulnerable patients who have lower education or other chronic illnesses. These patients need a team approach which include social workers and psychologists, to help with handling challenges after cancer diagnosis.
4.2. Study Limitations
The major strengths of this study include its nationwide, population‐based design and large sample size, comprising nearly 74,000 patients with lung cancer and matched controls from the general population. The long observation period and near‐complete follow‐up provided by Danish registries allowed for a comprehensive assessment of both pre‐ and post‐diagnosis trends. Importantly, the use of both hospital diagnostic data and prescription records enabled capture of both severe and milder cases of depression, avoiding reliance on self‐reported symptoms.
However, several limitations must be considered. As the study was based on registry data, detailed clinical information such as specific cancer treatment regimens or functional capacity was not available. Antidepressant use served as a proxy for depression rather than a confirmed clinical diagnosis, and prescriptions may have been issued for other indications such as neuropathic pain, anxiety disorders, or sleep disturbances, leading to potential misclassification. Conversely, untreated or non‐medicated depression, including cases managed with psychotherapy alone or not brought to clinical attention, would not be captured, resulting in possible underestimation of the true burden. Hospital‐based diagnoses likewise reflect only depression identified in secondary or tertiary care, meaning milder cases managed exclusively in primary care are not recorded in the patient registry.
Furthermore, limitations regarding the matching strategy and potential residual confounding must be acknowledged. We matched comparison subjects from the general population based on age, sex, marital status, and municipality, but intentionally did not match on comorbidity or socioeconomic parameters to allow for comparison with the general public. Consequently, baseline imbalances existed, with lung cancer patients having a higher comorbidity burden and lower educational attainment. Although we adjusted for these factors in our multivariable analyses, residual confounding likely remains. For instance, the Charlson Comorbidity Index captures the presence of diagnoses but not disease severity or symptom burden. Crucially, we could not adjust for smoking status, a strong shared risk factor for both lung cancer and depression, nor for physical inactivity. An inherent imbalance also exists regarding healthcare interactions; lung cancer patients undergo frequent clinical surveillance, increasing the probability that depression is detected and treated compared with the general population (surveillance bias). Finally, we lacked patient‐reported outcome measures that could have provided a more nuanced picture of psychological distress and quality of life beyond what is captured in administrative registries.
Furthermore, the exclusion of individuals with prior antidepressant use in our incidence analyses limits the generalizability of those specific findings to patients without recent psychiatric morbidity. While necessary to isolate new‐onset depression, this design element does not capture the likely exacerbation or relapse of pre‐existing depression in patients with a history of mental health issues. Therefore, the total need for psychological support in the lung cancer population is likely broader than the new‐onset rates alone suggest.
5. Conclusions
This nationwide study demonstrates that depression is common after a lung cancer diagnosis and may even precede it. The findings highlight the need for systematic psychosocial assessment and integrated mental health support throughout the lung cancer care pathway, from diagnosis to follow‐up.
Author Contributions
MB: drafting manuscript, conception, acquisition, interpretation. IFV: manuscript review – editing, conception, interpretation. OH: manuscript review – editing, conception, acquisition, interpretation, supervision. LS: manuscript review – editing, interpretation. LN: manuscript review – editing, interpretation. RI: manuscript review – editing, analysis, interpretation. AL: manuscript review – editing, conception, acquisition, conception, supervision.
Ethics Statement
This study used anonymized data obtained from the Danish National Patient Register, analyzing non‐personally identifiable information, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of individuals included in the registry. Written informed consent from participants is not required for the study presented in this article in accordance with national legislation.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a grant from The Danish Cancer Society (Grant No. R393‐A23621). The funding source had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Borg, Morten , Farver‐Vestergaard Ingeborg, Hilberg Ole, et al. 2025. “Changes in Depressive Patterns Before and After Lung Cancer Diagnosis: A Nationwide Population‐Based Study,” Psycho‐Oncology: e70371. 10.1002/pon.70371.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
References
- 1. Kratzer T. B., Bandi P., Freedman N. D., et al. “Lung Cancer Statistics, 2023,” Cancer 130, no. 8 (April 2024): 1330–1348, 10.1002/cncr.35128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Allemani C., Matsuda T., Di Carlo V., et al. “Global Surveillance of Trends in Cancer Survival 2000–14 (CONCORD‐3): Analysis of Individual Records for 37 513 025 Patients Diagnosed With One of 18 Cancers From 322 Population‐Based Registries in 71 Countries,” Lancet 391, no. 10125 (March 2018): 1023–1075, 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33326-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Danish Lung Cancer Group . Danish Lung Cancer Registry Annual Report 2023.
- 4. Luo Y. H., Luo L., Wampfler J. A., et al. “5‐year Overall Survival in Patients With Lung Cancer Eligible or Ineligible for Screening According to US Preventive Services Task Force Criteria: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study,” Lancet Oncology 20, no. 8 (August 2019): 1098–1108, 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30329-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Borg M., Hilberg O., Andersen M. B., Weinreich U. M., and Rasmussen T. R., “Increased Use of Computed Tomography in Denmark: Stage Shift Toward Early Stage Lung Cancer Through Incidental Findings,” Acta Oncologica 61, no. 10 (October 2022): 1256–1262, 10.1080/0284186x.2022.2135134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Field J. K., Vulkan D., Davies M. P. A., et al. “Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction by LDCT Screening: UKLS Randomised Trial Results and International meta‐analysis,” Lancet Reg Health ‐ Eur. 10 (November 2012): 100179, 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Nitz J. A. and Erkmen C. P., “New 2021 USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Criteria‐An Opportunity to Mitigate Racial Disparity,” JAMA Oncology 8, no. 3 (March 2022): 383–384, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Moyer V. A., “Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement,” Annals of Internal Medicine 160, no. 5 (March 2014): 330–338, 10.7326/m13-2771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Li Y., Yan B., and He S., “Advances and Challenges in the Treatment of Lung Cancer,” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 169 (December 2023): 115891, 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Borg M., Løkke A., and Rasmussen T. R., “Symptoms and Lung Function follow‐up After Lung Cancer Resection,” Danish Medical Journal 68, no. 10 (September 2021): A02210115, PMID: 34558410, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34558410/. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Borg M., Løkke A., Ibsen R., and Hilberg O., “Four Decades of Lung Cancer: Trends in Comorbidities and Causes of Death in a Nationwide Danish Cohort,” European Journal of Cancer 218 (March 2025): 115303, 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Morrison E. J., Novotny P. J., Sloan J. A., et al. “Emotional Problems, Quality of Life, and Symptom Burden in Patients With Lung Cancer,” Clinical Lung Cancer 18, no. 5 (September 2017): 497–503, 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Pirl W. F., Greer J. A., Traeger L., et al. “Depression and Survival in Metastatic Non‐Small‐Cell Lung Cancer: Effects of Early Palliative Care,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, no. 12 (April 2012): 1310–1315, 10.1200/jco.2011.38.3166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Hopwood P. and Stephens R. J., and for the British Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party . “Depression in Patients With Lung Cancer: Prevalence and Risk Factors Derived From Quality‐of‐Life Data,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 18, no. 4 (February 2000): 893–903, 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.4.893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Shahedah K. K., How S. H., Jamalludin A. R., Mohd Faiz M. T., Kuan Y. C., and Ong C. K., “Depressive Symptoms in Newly Diagnosed Lung Carcinoma: Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors,” Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 82, no. 3 (July 2019): 217–226, 10.4046/trd.2018.0048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Wang X., Ma X., Yang M., et al. “Proportion and Related Factors of Depression and Anxiety for Inpatients With Lung Cancer in China: A Hospital‐Based Cross‐Sectional Study,” Supportive Care in Cancer 30, no. 6 (June 2022): 5539–5549, 10.1007/s00520-022-06961-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Sullivan D. R., Forsberg C. W., Ganzini L., et al. “Depression Symptom Trends and Health Domains Among Lung Cancer Patients in the Cancors Study,” Lung Cancer 100 (October 2016): 102–109, 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.08.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Ghanean H., Ceniti A. K., and Kennedy S. H., “Fatigue in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: Prevalence, Burden and Pharmacological Approaches to Management,” CNS Drugs 32, no. 1 (January 2018): 65–74, 10.1007/s40263-018-0490-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Kessler R. C., Berglund P., Demler O., et al. “The Epidemiology of Major Depressive Disorder: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS‐R),” JAMA 289, no. 23 (June 2003): 3095, 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Lynge E., Sandegaard J. L., and Rebolj M., “The Danish National Patient Register,” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 39, no. 7 (July 2011): 30–33, 10.1177/1403494811401482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Christensen J., Kejs A. M. T., Schmidt L. K. H., et al. “Agreement Between the Danish Cancer Registry and the Danish Lung Cancer Registry,” Danish Medical Journal 67, no. 8 (August 2020): A04190257, PMID: 32741437, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32741437/. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Pottegård A., Schmidt S. A. J., Wallach‐Kildemoes H., Sørensen H. T., Hallas J., and Schmidt M., “Data Resource Profile: The Danish National Prescription Registry,” International Journal of Epidemiology (October 2016): dyw213, 10.1093/ije/dyw213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Quan H., Li B., Couris C. M., et al. “Updating and Validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Score for Risk Adjustment in Hospital Discharge Abstracts Using Data From 6 Countries,” American Journal of Epidemiology 173, no. 6 (March 2011): 676–682, 10.1093/aje/kwq433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Jensen V. M. and Rasmussen A. W., “Danish Education Registers,” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 39, no. 7 (July 2011): 91–94, 10.1177/1403494810394715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Bade B. C., Faiz S. A., Ha D. M., et al. “Cancer‐Related Fatigue in Lung Cancer: A Research Agenda: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 207, no. 5 (March 2023): e6–e28, 10.1164/rccm.202210-1963st. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Sullivan D. R., Forsberg C. W., Ganzini L., et al. “Longitudinal Changes in Depression Symptoms and Survival Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A National Cohort Assessment,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 34, no. 33 (November 2016): 3984–3991, 10.1200/jco.2016.66.8459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Borg M., Løkke A., Henriksen M., Wen S. W. C., Ibsen R., Hilberg O. “Educational Attainment and Employment Status in Lung Cancer Patients: A Nationwide Study.” Clinical and Translational Oncology, (July 2025) [cited 2025 Oct 8], https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12094‐025‐03994‐y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Peyrot W. J., Lee S. H., Milaneschi Y., et al. “The Association Between Lower Educational Attainment and Depression Owing to Shared Genetic Effects? Results in ∼25 000 Subjects,” Molecular Psychiatry 20, no. 6 (June 2015): 735–743, 10.1038/mp.2015.50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Trudel‐Fitzgerald C., Zevon E. S., Kawachi I., Tucker‐Seeley R. D., and Kubzansky L. D., “Depression, Smoking, and Lung Cancer Risk over 24 Years Among Women,” Psychological Medicine 52, no. 13 (October 2022): 2510–2519, 10.1017/s0033291720004390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Chambers S. K., Baade P., Youl P., et al. “Psychological Distress and Quality of Life in Lung Cancer: The Role of Health‐Related Stigma, Illness Appraisals and Social Constraints,” Psycho‐Oncology 24, no. 11 (November 2015): 1569–1577, 10.1002/pon.3829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Cataldo J. K. and Brodsky J. L., “Lung Cancer Stigma, Anxiety, Depression and Symptom Severity,” Oncology 85, no. 1 (2013): 33–40, 10.1159/000350834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Carter‐Harris L., Ceppa D. P., Hanna N., and Rawl S. M., “Lung Cancer Screening: What Do Long‐Term Smokers Know and Believe?,” Health Expectations 20, no. 1 (February 2017): 59–68, 10.1111/hex.12433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Tod A. M., Craven J., and Allmark P., “Diagnostic Delay in Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Study,” Journal of Advanced Nursing 61, no. 3 (February 2008): 336–343, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04542.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Polański J., Chabowski M., Chudiak A., et al. “Intensity of Anxiety and Depression in Patients With Lung Cancer in Relation to Quality of Life.” In: Pokorski M., editor. Pulmonary Disorders and Therapy. Springer International Publishing; (2017) [cited 2025 Oct 8]. p. 29–36. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; vol. 1023), http://link.springer.com/10.1007/5584_2017_50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.