PURPOSE Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a significantly distressing problem that affects a substantial number of patients with and survivors of cancer; however, the overall efficacy of available psychological interventions on FCR remains unknown. We therefore evaluated this in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated the effect of psychological interventions on FCR among patients with and survivors of cancer. Controlled trials were subjected to meta-analysis, and the moderating influence of study characteristics on the effect were examined. Overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system. Open trials were narratively reviewed to explore ongoing developments in the field (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42017076514). RESULTS A total of 23 controlled trials (21 randomized controlled trials) and nine open trials were included. Small effects (Hedges’s g) were found both at postintervention ( g = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46; P < .001) and at follow-up ( g = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.40; P < .001). Effects at postintervention of contemporary cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs; g = 0.42) were larger than those of traditional CBTs ( g = 0.24; β = .22; 95% CI, .04 to .41; P = .018). At follow-up, larger effects were associated with shorter time to follow-up (β = −.01; 95% CI, −.01 to −.00; P = .027) and group-based formats (β = .18; 95% CI, .01 to .36; P = .041). A GRADE evaluation indicated evidence of moderate strength for effects of psychological intervention for FCR. CONCLUSION Psychological interventions for FCR revealed a small but robust effect at postintervention, which was largely maintained at follow-up. Larger postintervention effects were found for contemporary CBTs that were focused on processes of cognition—for example, worry, rumination, and attentional bias—rather than the content, and aimed to change the way in which the individual relates to his or her inner experiences. Future trials could investigate how to further optimize and tailor interventions to individual patients’ FCR presentation.

Objective Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI‐SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics. Methods This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI‐SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Results IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI‐SF (range 0–36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis. Conclusions FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).

Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a pervasive concern for people living with cancer. The rapidly expanding FCR literature has been weakened somewhat by use of miscellaneous FCR measures of varying quality. The Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) has been widely used in observational and intervention studies and the FCRI severity subscale, also known as the FCRI-Short Form (FCRI-SF), is often used to identify potential cases of clinically significant FCR. Given the FCRI’s increasing use in research and clinical practice, we aimed to provide an overview, critique, and suggested improvements of the FCRI. Studies citing the original FCRI validation paper were identified and synthesised using narrative and meta-analytic methods. The 42-item FCRI has demonstrated a reasonably robust 7-factor structure across evaluations in multiple languages, although certain subscales (eg, Coping) demonstrate sub-optimal reliability. Confirmation of the cross-cultural equivalence of several FCRI translations is needed. Meta-analysis of FCRI-SF scores revealed a combined weighted mean score of 15.7/36, a little above the lowest proposed cut-off score (≥13) for clinical FCR. Depending on the FCRI-SF cut-off used, between 30.0% and 53.9% of the cancer population (ie, patients and survivors) appear to experience sub-clinical or clinical FCR. Higher FCRI scores were associated with younger age and female gender, pain/physical symptoms and psychological morbidity, consistent with the FCR literature generally. Issues regarding the application and interpretation of the FCRI remain. Whether the FCRI is well suited to assessing fear of progression as well as recurrence is unclear, the meaningfulness of the FCRI total score is debatable, and the use of the FCRI-SF to screen for clinical FCR is problematic, as items do not reflect established characteristics of clinical FCR. Refinement of the FCRI is needed for it to remain a key FCR assessment tool in future research and clinical practice.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

ObjectiveFear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is reported by both cancer survivors and caregivers however less is known about caregiver FCR. This study aimed to (a) conduct a meta‐analysis to compare survivor and caregiver FCR levels; (b) examine the relationship between caregiver FCR and depression, and anxiety; (c) evaluate psychometric properties of caregiver FCR measures.MethodsCINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO and PubMed were searched for quantitative research examining caregiver FCR. Eligibility criteria included caregivers caring for a survivor with any type of cancer, reporting on caregiver FCR and/or measurement, published in English‐language, peer‐review journals between 1997 and November 2022. The COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) taxonomy was used to evaluate content and psychometric properties. The review was pre‐registered (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020201906).ResultsOf 4297 records screened, 45 met criteria for inclusion. Meta‐analysis revealed that caregivers reported FCR levels as high as FCR amongst survivors, with around 48% of caregivers reporting clinically significant FCR levels. There was a strong correlation between anxiety and depression and medium correlation with survivor FCR. Twelve different instruments were used to measure caregiver FCR. Assessments using the COSMIN taxonomy revealed few instruments had undergone appropriate development and psychometric testing. Only one instrument met 50% or more of the criteria, indicating substantial development or validation components were missing in most.ConclusionsResults suggest FCR is as often a problem for caregivers as it is for survivors. As in survivors, caregiver FCR is associated with more severe depression and anxiety. Caregiver FCR measurement has predominately relied on survivor conceptualisations and unvalidated measures. More caregiver‐specific research is urgently needed.