ObjectivesTo identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety (‘scanxiety’) and interventions to reduce it.DesignSystematic scoping review.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL and PubMed up to July 2020.Study selectionEligible studies recruited people having cancer-related non-invasive scans (including screening) and contained a quantitative assessment of scanxiety.Data extractionDemographics and scanxiety outcomes were recorded, and data were summarised by descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 26 693 citations, 57 studies were included across a range of scan types (mammogram: 26/57, 46%; positron-emission tomography: 14/57, 25%; CT: 14/57, 25%) and designs (observation: 47/57, 82%; intervention: 10/57, 18%). Eighty-one measurement tools were used to quantify prevalence and/or severity of scanxiety, including purpose-designed Likert scales (17/81, 21%); the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (14/81, 17%) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9/81, 11%). Scanxiety prevalence ranged from 0% to 64% (above prespecified thresholds) or from 13% to 83% (‘any’ anxiety, if no threshold). Mean severity scores appeared low in almost all measures that quantitatively measured scanxiety (54/62, 87%), regardless of whether anxiety thresholds were prespecified. Moderate to severe scanxiety occurred in 4%–28% of people in studies using descriptive measures. Nine of 20 studies assessing scanxiety prescan and postscan reported significant postscan reduction in scanxiety. Lower education, smoking, higher levels of pain, higher perceived risk of cancer and diagnostic scans (vs screening scans) consistently correlated with higher scanxiety severity but not age, gender, ethnicity or marital status. Interventions included relaxation, distraction, education and psychological support. Six of 10 interventions showed a reduction in scanxiety.ConclusionsPrevalence and severity of scanxiety varied widely likely due to heterogeneous methods of measurement. A uniform approach to evaluating scanxiety will improve understanding of the phenomenon and help guide interventions.

No abstract

PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) affects 50%-70% of cancer survivors. This multicenter, single-arm study sought to determine the participant-rated usefulness of an oncologist-delivered FCR intervention. METHODS: Women who completed treatment for early breast cancer (could be receiving endocrine therapy) with baseline FCR > 0 were invited to participate. FCR was measured using a validated 42-item FCR Inventory. The brief oncologist-delivered intervention entailed (1) FCR normalization; (2) provision of personalized prognostic information; (3) recurrence symptoms education, (4) advice on managing worry, and (5) referral to psycho-oncologist if FCR was high. FCR, depression, and anxiety were assessed preintervention (T0), at 1 week (T1), and 3 months (T2) postintervention. The primary outcome was participant-rated usefulness. Secondary outcomes included feasibility and efficacy. RESULTS: Five oncologists delivered the intervention to 61/255 women invited. Mean age was 58 ± 12 years. Mean time since breast cancer diagnosis was 2.5 ± 1.3 years. Forty-three women (71%) were on adjuvant endocrine therapy. Of 58 women who completed T1 assessment, 56 (97%) found the intervention to be useful. FCR severity decreased significantly at T1 (F = 18.5, effect size = 0.39, P < .0001) and T2 (F = 24, effect size = 0.68, P < .0001) compared with baseline. There were no changes in unmet need or depression or anxiety. Mean consultation length was 22 minutes (range, 7-47 minutes), and mean intervention length was 8 minutes (range, 2-20 minutes). The intervention was perceived as useful and feasible by oncologists. CONCLUSION: A brief oncologist-delivered intervention to address FCR is useful and feasible, and has preliminary efficacy in reducing FCR. Plans for a cluster randomized trial are underway.

Targeted molecular treatments have changed the way non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is managed. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF), and c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) mutations are now used to guide specific anti-cancer therapies to improve patient outcomes. New targeted molecular treatments are constantly being developed and evaluated as a means to improve efficacy, overcome resistance, or minimise toxicity. This review article summarises the current evidence for the efficacy, resistance mechanisms, and safety of targeted molecular treatments against specific mutations in NSCLC.