The Role of Telemedicine for Psychological Support for Oncological Patients Who Have Received Radiotherapy

AIM: In our radiation departments, all patients received psycho-oncological support during RT and during follow-up. Based on the latter, the aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the role of tele-visits and in-person psychological support for cancer patients after RT, and to report a descriptive analysis pointing out the needs of psychosocial intervention in a radiation department during radiation treatment. METHODS: According to our institutional care management, all patients receiving RT were prospectively enrolled to receive charge-free assessment of their cognitive, emotional and physical states and psycho-oncological support during treatment. For the whole population who accepted the psychological support during RT, a descriptive analysis was reported. For all patients who agreed to be followed up by a psycho-oncologist, at the end of RT, a retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate the differences between tele-consultations (video-call or telephone) and on-site psychological visits. Patients were followed up by on-site psychological visit (Group-OS) or tele-consult (Group-TC) visit. For each group, to evaluate anxiety, depression and distress, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), Distress Thermometer and Brief COPE (BC) were used. RESULTS: From July 2019 to June 2022, 1145 cases were evaluated during RT with structured psycho-oncological interviews for a median of 3 sessions (range 2–5). During their first psycho-oncological interview, all the 1145 patients experienced the assessment of anxiety, depression and distress levels with the following results: concerning the HADS-A scale, 50% of cases (574 patients) reported a pathological score ≥8; concerning the HADS-D scale, 30% of cases (340 patients) reported a pathological score ≥8, concerning the DT scale, 60% (687 patients) reported a pathological score ≥4. Eighty-two patients were evaluated after RT: 30 in the Group-OS and 52 in the Group-TC. During follow-up, a median of 8 meetings (range 4–28) were performed. Comparing psychological data at baseline (beginning of RT) and at the last follow-up, in the entire population, a significant improvement in terms of HADS-A, global HADS and BC was shown (p 0.04; p 0.05; and p 0.0008, respectively). Compared to baseline, statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of anxiety in favor of on-site visit: Group-OS reported a better anxiety score compared with Group-TC. In each group, a statistical improvement was observed in BC (p 0.01). CONCLUSION: The study revealed optimal compliance to tele-visit psychological support, even if the anxiety could be better controlled when patients were followed up on-site. However, rigorous research on this topic is needed.