Abstract
This study retrospectively investigated the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of anxiety and depression in patients with oral cancer (OC) during the perioperative period (PPP). This retrospective study reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent OC surgery and experienced anxiety and depression during PPP. The patients were divided into the treatment (n = 36) and control (n = 36) groups. The patients in the treatment group received tDCS, whereas those in the control group did not receive tDCS. The primary outcomes included the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs). We analyzed the outcome data before and after treatment. After treatment, patients in the treatment group achieved greater relief in SAS (P < .01) and SDS (P < .01) scores than those in the control group. Regarding safety, no electronic medical records reported any AEs in this study. The results of this study showed that tDCS may help relieve depression and anxiety in patients with OC during PPP. However, high-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.
Keywords: anxiety, depression, efficacy, oral cancer, transcranial direct current stimulation
1. Introduction
Oral cancer (OC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancy around the world.[1–4] It is also one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality globally, with a 5-year survival rate of approximately 50% after treatment.[5,6] According to cancer statistics in China, about 48,100 patients are diagnosed with lip, oral cavity, and pharyngeal cancers.[7] Approximately 22,100 patients died in 2015.[7] Surgical resection is the first choice and gold standard treatment for curative purposes in patients with OC.[8–10] However, most patients who undergo surgery during the perioperative period (PPP) often experience psychological disorders, such as anxiety and depression.[11–14]
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe, noninvasive, and painless treatment technique.[15–18] It applies low-intensity direct current using scalp electrodes overlying targeted cerebral cortical areas through the scalp.[15–17] Although a variety of studies have reported tDCS for anxiety and depression relief,[19–25] there are still insufficient data to investigate the efficacy of tDCS in the treatment of anxiety and depression in patients with OC during PPP. Therefore, this retrospective study explored the efficacy of tDCS for anxiety and depression in patients with OC during PPP.
2. Methods
2.1. Ethical statement
Ethical approval was waived for this study because it only collected and analyzed data from completed patient records. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
2.2. Study design
This retrospective study was conducted at Yanan University Affiliated Hospital between May 2019 and April 2021. A total of 72 electronic medical records of patients with OC who underwent surgery were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patients were divided into treatment (n = 36) and a control (n = 36) groups. All patients were allocated according to the different treatments they received. The patients in the treatment group received tDCS, whereas those in the control group did not. All relevant data were collected by independent researchers who were blinded to the purpose of the study.
2.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
All included patients met the following criteria: OC confirmed by pathology; age from to 18–75 years; underwent surgery treatment course; presence of anxiety and depression; and fully understood the study process and signed the informed consent.
Patients were excluded if they met the following criteria: presence of mental problems or inability to communicate, presence of severe diseases, recurrence of the disease, and incomplete information in electronic medical records. In addition, we also excluded patients who had previously received the study medication within the month before the study.
2.4. Treatment schedule
All the patients in the treatment group underwent tDCS. This was achieved using a battery-powered microprocessor-controlled constant current device (Transcranial Ltd., London, United Kingdom). The patients were treated with 2-mA intensity for 30 minutes, once daily for a total of 4 weeks. None of the patients in the control group had receive tDCS.[26]
2.5. Outcome measurements
The primary outcomes were anxiety and depression. Anxiety was evaluated using the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS).[27] Depression was measured using the Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS).[28] The secondary outcome was adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were analyzed before and after treatment.
2.6. Statistical analysis
SPSS software (SPSS 17.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to analyze all data. For continuous data, Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze normal or non-normal distribution. For discontinuous data, χ2 test or Fisher exact test was used. A 2-side P < .05 was considered statistically significant for all tests.
3. Results
A total of 168 electronic medical records of patients with OC who underwent surgery during the study period were analyzed. After exclusion, 72 eligible patient records were included in the analysis, with 36 patients in the treatment group and 36 subjects in the control group (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.
Procedure of study patient selection.
The general patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. We collected and analyzed data on age, sex, race, cancer location, tumor size, risk factors, smoking status, and alcohol consumption status from the included case records. There were no significant differences in any of these general characteristics between the 2 groups (Table 1).
Table 1.
General characteristics of all patients.
| Characteristics | Treatment group (n = 36) | Control group (n = 36) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 52.5 (8.6) | 53.1 (8.2) | .76 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 29 (80.6) | 31 (86.1) | .53 |
| Female | 7 (19.4) | 5 (13.9) | – |
| Race (ethnicity) | |||
| Han | 35 (97.2) | 33 (91.7) | .33 |
| Mongolian | 1 (2.8) | 3 (8.3) | – |
| Cancer location | |||
| Buccal | 21 (58.3) | 19 (52.8) | .64 |
| Lower gum | 3 (8.3) | 4 (11.1) | .69 |
| Lower lip | 1 (2.8) | 0 (0) | .49 |
| Mouth floor | 3 (8.3) | 4 (11.1) | .69 |
| Tough | 8 (22.3) | 9 (25.0) | .78 |
| Tumor size (mm) | |||
| <10 | 16 (44.4) | 14 (38.9) | .63 |
| ≥10 | 20 (55.6) | 22 (61.1) | – |
| Risk factors | |||
| Smoking status | |||
| Smoker | 26 (72.2) | 24 (66.7) | .61 |
| Nonsmoker | 10 (27.8) | 12 (33.3) | – |
| Alcohol status | |||
| Drinker | 29 (80.6) | 27 (75.0) | .57 |
| Nondrinker | 7 (19.4) | 9 (25.0) | – |
Data are present as mean ± standard deviation or number (%).
Before treatment, there were no significant differences in the SAS (P = .75; Table 2) and SDS (P = .76; Table 3) scores between the 2 groups. After treatment, the patients in the treatment group achieved a greater reduction in SAS (P < .01; Table 2) and SDS (P < .01; Table 3) scores than those in the control group.
Table 2.
Comparison of SAS before and after treatment between the 2 groups.
| Outcome measurements | Treatment group (n = 36) | Control group (n = 36) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 55.4 (7.7) | 56.0 (8.1) | .75 |
| After treatment | 41.2 (4.4) | 47.3 (5.0) | <.01 |
| Change from treatment before | −14.2 (−16.9, −11.5) | −8.7 (−10.1, −7.0) | |
| Difference between 2 groups | −5.5 (−6.8, −4.2) | <.01 |
Data are present as mean ± standard deviation (range).
SAS = self-rating anxiety scale.
Table 3.
Comparison of SDS before and after treatment between the 2 groups.
| Outcome measurements | Treatment group (n = 36) | Control group (n = 36) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 66.7 (8.1) | 67.3 (8.4) | .76 |
| After treatment | 44.6 (5.9) | 52.5 (6.3) | <.01 |
| Change from treatment before | −22.1 (−26.3, −18.6) | −14.8 (−17.9, −10.2) | |
| Difference between 2 groups | −7.3 (−9.1, −5.7) | <.01 |
Data are present as mean ± standard deviation (range).
SDS = self-rating depression scale.
In terms of safety, no medical records reported tDCS-related AEs in this study.
4. Discussion
OC is one of the most frequently reported cancers in the world. Despite great improvements in OC diagnosis and treatment, morbidity and mortality rates remain high. Currently, surgery is the first choice for OC management. However, patients who undergo surgery also experience psychological disorders, such as anxiety and depression. Studies have reported that tDCS can relieve anxiety and depression with promising efficacy. However, there is limited data to support the efficacy of tDCS in the treatment of anxiety and depression in patients with OC during PPP.
This retrospective study analyzed the electronic medical records of patients with OC. We divided the 72 eligible medical records into treatment and control groups, with 36 participants in each group. All the patients in the treatment group underwent tDCS, and none of the patients in the control group underwent tDCS. The results of this study showed that patients in the treatment group experienced greater reductions in depression and anxiety than those in the control group. This finding indicated that tDCS may be effective in relieving anxiety and depression in patients with OC during PPP. Additionally, no AEs related to tDCS were reported in electronic medical records.
This retrospective study has several limitations. First, the present results may be affected by confounding factors and selection bias due to the retrospective nature of this study. Second, this study only assessed anxiety and depression using the SAS and SDS, respectively. No additional outcomes were assessed owing to insufficient information in the electronic medical records. Third, no randomization, blinding of patients, researchers, and data analysts, and allocation details were identified in the medical records, which may have increased the risk of selection bias. Finally, we collected all electronic medical records from Yanan University Affiliated Hospital, which may have affected its generalization to other hospitals.
5. Conclusion
The current study suggests that tDCS could provide clinical benefits in terms of anxiety and depression relief in patients with OC during PPP. Further clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.
Author contributions
Conceptualization:Zhi-biao Gao.
Data curation: Wen-juan Zhang.
Formal analysis:Rui Tuo.
Investigation: Wei-jing Cao.
Methodology: Xia Xiao.
Supervision: Wei-jing Cao.
Validation: Xia Xiao.
Writing–original draft: Zhi-biao Gao.
Writing–review & editing: Wei-jing Cao
Abbreviations:
- OC =
- oral cancer
- PPP =
- perioperative period
- SAS =
- self-rating anxiety scale
- SDS =
- self-rating depression scale
- tDCS =
- transcranial direct current stimulation
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
All authors declared no competing interest in this study.
How to cite this article: Gao Z-B, Zhang W-J, Tuo R, Xiao X, Cao W-J. Transcranial direct current stimulation in the treatment of anxiety and depression in patients with oral cancer during perioperative period. Medicine 2022;101:35(e30220).
Contributor Information
Zhi-biao Gao, Email: gang98183286@163.com.
Wen-juan Zhang, Email: oyrpnuwyyy@outlook.com.
Rui Tuo, Email: kamdythyryk@outlook.com.
Xia Xiao, Email: xinqianqiangxzo@163.com.
References
- [1].Chaurasia A, Alam SI, Singh N. Oral cancer diagnostics: an overview. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2021;12:324–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Georgaki M, Theofilou VI, Pettas E, et al. Understanding the complex pathogenesis of oral cancer: a comprehensive review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2021;132:566–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Su YF, Chen YJ, Tsai FT, et al. Current insights into oral cancer diagnostics. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11:1287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Trotta BM, Pease CS, Rasamny JJ, et al. Oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: key imaging findings for staging and treatment planning. Radiographics. 2011;31:339–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Tseng HH, Tseng YK, You JJ, et al. Next-generation sequencing for microRNA profiling: microRNA-21-3p promotes oral cancer metastasis. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:1059–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA: A Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:115–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Suojanen J, Kainulainen S, Tarvainen L, et al. Handgrip strength predicts poorly the surgical outcome or length of hospitalization in patients with surgically operated oral cancer. Anticancer Res. 2022;42:2771–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Noorlag R, de Bree R, Witjes MJH. Image-guided surgery in oral cancer: toward improved margin control. Curr Opin Oncol. 2022;34:170–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Karino M, Tatsumi H, Kaneko I, et al. A clinical study of orofacial defect reconstruction using a modified submental Island flap following oral Cancer resection. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2021;48:2098–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Wang SB, Qin SH, Li XM, et al. Study of psychological distress and quality of life in patients with oral cancer. Shanghai J Stomatol. 2018;27:486–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Khandpur M, Kumar K, Kumar S, et al. A single-blinded assessment of the effect of communication on psychological burden among oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorder patients. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022;12:427–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Kung LY, Li TI, Chung CH, et al. Risk of depression in patients with oral cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Taiwan. Sci Rep. 2021;11:23524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Kumar K, Kumar S, Mehrotra D, et al. Prospective evaluation of psychological burden in patients with oral cancer. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56:918–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Li Q, Fu Y, Liu C, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders. Front Behav Neurosci. 2022;16:893955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Lee HS, Rast C, Shenoy S, et al. A meta-analytic review of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on general psychopathology symptoms of schizophrenia; immediate improvement followed by a return to baseline. Psychiatry Res. 2022;310:114471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Leaver AM, Gonzalez S, Vasavada M, et al. Modulation of brain networks during MR-compatible transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroimage. 2022;250:118874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Yamada Y, Sumiyoshi T. Preclinical evidence for the mechanisms of transcranial direct current stimulation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders; a systematic review. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2021;15500594211066151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Hadoush H, Alqudah A, Banihani SA, et al. Melatonin serum level, sleep functions, and depression level after bilateral anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a feasibility study. Sleep Sci. 2021;14:25–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Gupta T, Mittal VA. Transcranial direct current stimulation and emotion processing deficits in psychosis and depression. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2021;271:69–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Sadeghi Bimorgh M, Omidi A, Ghoreishi FS, et al. The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on relapse, anxiety, and depression in patients with opioid dependence under methadone maintenance treatment: a pilot study. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Zhou Q, Yu C, Yu H, et al. The effects of repeated transcranial direct current stimulation on sleep quality and depression symptoms in patients with major depression and insomnia. Sleep Med. 2020;70:17–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Mota SM, Amaral de Castro L, Riedel PG, et al. Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of symptoms of depression and anxiety in temporal lobe epilepsy: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial. Front Integr Neurosci. 2021;15:753995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Taremian F, Nazari S, Moradveisi L, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation on opium craving, depression, and anxiety: a preliminary study. J ECT. 2019;35:201–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].DʼUrso G, Mantovani A, Patti S, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorders. J ECT. 2018;34:172–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Brunoni AR, Moffa AH, Sampaio-Junior B, et al. Trial of electrical direct-current therapy versus escitalopram for depression. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Dunstan DA, Scott N. Norms for Zung’s self-rating anxiety scale. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20:90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Jokelainen J, Timonen M, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S, et al. Validation of the Zung self-rating depression scale (SDS) in older adults. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019;37:353–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]