The diversity of methods used in studies hinders analysis of patterns and predictors of unmet need among people with cancer and precludes generalisation. Well-designed, context-specific, prospective studies, using validated instruments and standard methods of analysis and reporting, are needed to benefit future interventional research to identify how best to address the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer.

These improvements represent clinically meaningful change and provide evidence for the provision of MBCT within oncology settings.

Where research objectives are concerned with the impact of a specific tumour type, treatment or symptom, choice should be guided by the availability, content, scale structure and psychometric properties of relevant European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer versus Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy modules. Because the FACT-G combines symptoms and concerns within each scale, individual items should always be reviewed within the context of specific research objectives. Where these issues are indecisive, researchers are encouraged to use an algorithm at the end of the current article.

Cognitive impairment is reported frequently by cancer survivors. There are no proven treatments. We evaluated a cognitive rehabilitation program (Insight) and compared it with standard care in cancer survivors self-reporting cognitive symptoms. Patients and MethodsWe recruited adult cancer survivors with a primary malignancy (excluding central nervous system malignancies) who had completed three or more cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy in the previous 6 to 60 months and reported persistent cognitive symptoms. All participants received a 30-minute telephone consultation and were then randomly assigned to the 15-week, home-based intervention or to standard care. Primary outcome was self-reported cognitive function (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Cognitive Function [FACT-COG] perceived cognitive impairment [PCI] subscale): difference between groups after intervention (T2) and 6 months later (T3). ResultsA total of 242 participants were randomly assigned: median age, 53 years; 95% female. The primary outcome of difference in FACT-COG PCI was significant, with less PCI in the intervention group at T2 (P , .001). This difference was sustained at T3 (P , .001). At T2, there was a significant difference in all FACT-COG subscales, favoring the intervention. Neuropsychological results were not significantly different between the groups at T2 or T3. There were significantly lower levels of anxiety/ depression and fatigue in the intervention group at T2. There were significant improvements in stress in the intervention group at both time points. There was no significant difference in quality of life between the groups at T2, but the intervention group had better quality of life at T3. ConclusionThe intervention, Insight, led to improvements in cognitive symptoms compared with standard care. To our knowledge, this is the first large randomized controlled trial showing an improvement in selfreported cognitive function in cancer survivors, indicating that this intervention is a feasible treatment.