A new systematic review conducted by researchers from the University Hospital Tübingen has shed light on the effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in alleviating symptoms of depression and anxiety among cancer patients. The review, which analysed eight studies involving 390 patients, highlights the promising role of IPT in psycho-oncology, particularly in addressing the psychosocial distress that often accompanies a cancer diagnosis.
Cancer patients frequently experience significant levels of distress due to the challenges associated with their diagnosis, treatment, and subsequent adaptation to life post-treatment. Up to 52% of patients report distress levels that are clinically significant, with 30–40% exhibiting symptoms of mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. This distress is often rooted in interpersonal difficulties, including social isolation, communication barriers, and conflicts arising from changes in social roles.
Interpersonal psychotherapy, a form of psychotherapy that focuses on the patient’s social interactions and role transitions, has emerged as a potential solution to these challenges. Originally developed in the 1980s, IPT has been adapted for various contexts, including psycho-oncology, to address the specific needs of cancer patients.
The systematic review focused on evaluating the impact of IPT-based interventions on distress, depression, and anxiety in cancer patients. The findings revealed that in-person IPT interventions were particularly effective in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety. Patients who received IPT showed significant improvements in these areas compared to those who received treatment as usual (TAU) or other forms of psychotherapy.
One study included in the review compared IPT to both problem-solving therapy and brief supportive psychotherapy. The results indicated that while all three interventions were effective in reducing depressive symptoms, IPT was equally effective but offered the added benefit of addressing the unique interpersonal challenges faced by cancer patients. This suggests that IPT’s focus on interpersonal relationships and role transitions may provide a more comprehensive approach to managing the psychological effects of cancer.
Another key finding of the review was the mixed results for interpersonal counselling (IPC), a shorter and more accessible form of IPT delivered remotely. While some studies found IPC to be superior to control conditions in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, others did not show significant improvements. For example, one study involving male prostate cancer patients found that remote health education was more effective than IPC in reducing distress and depression. This raises questions about the efficacy of remote IPC, particularly in male populations or when compared to other active interventions.
The review’s authors caution that while the results for in-person IPT are promising, more research is needed to fully understand its potential benefits across different patient populations and settings. Small sample sizes, a lack of diversity in the types of cancer and patient demographics studied, and the current body of research are all limiting factors. Most of the studies reviewed focused exclusively on women with breast cancer, making it difficult to generalise the findings to other cancer types or to male patients.
Despite these limitations, the review underscores the importance of addressing the psychosocial needs of cancer patients through targeted interventions like IPT. The therapy’s emphasis on understanding and improving interpersonal relationships may be particularly beneficial in helping patients navigate the complex social challenges that arise during cancer treatment. By providing patients with the tools to manage role transitions and improve communication within their social networks, IPT could play a crucial role in enhancing the overall well-being and quality of life of those affected by cancer.
