Background: Fear of cancer recurrence or progression (FCR) is common amongst cancer survivors and an important minority develop clinically significant levels of FCR. However, it is unclear how current clinical services might best support the growing numbers of cancer survivors. Purpose: The aim of this study is to develop recommendations for future research in the management of FCR and propose a model of care to help manage FCR in the growing population of cancer survivors. Methods: This is a narrative review and synthesis of empirical research relevant to managing FCR. We reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews and individual studies that had investigated interventions for FCR. Results: A recent, well-conducted meta-analysis confirmed a range of moderately effective treatments for FCR. However, many survivors continued to experience clinical levels of FCR after treatment, indicating a clear need to improve the gold standard treatments. Accessibility of interventions is arguably a greater concern. The majority of FCR treatments require face-to-face therapy, with highly skilled psycho-oncologists to produce moderate changes in FCR. With increasing numbers of cancer survivors, we need to consider how to meet the unmet need of cancer survivors in relation to FCR. Although there have been attempts to develop minimal interventions, these are not yet sufficiently well supported to warrant implementation. Attempts to help clinicians to provide information which might prevent the development of clinically significant FCR have shown some early promise, but research is needed to confirm efficacy. Conclusion:The next decade of research needs to focus on developing preventative approaches for FCR, and minimal interventions for those with mild-to-moderate symptoms. When evidence-based approaches to prevent FCR or manage moderate levels of FCR are available, stepped care approaches that could meet the needs of survivors could be implemented. However, we also need to improve existing interventions for severe FCR.

Background Models of fear of cancer recurrence or progression (FCR/P) suggest that the way in which people interpret ambiguous physical symptoms is an important contributor to the development and maintenance of FCR/P, but research has not investigated this claim. The aim of this study is to fill that gap. Methods This was a cross‐sectional study. Sixty‐two women with ovarian cancer reported completed measures of FCR/P, an interpretation bias task and a symptom checklist. The healthy control group (n = 96) completed the interpretation bias task. Results Women with ovarian cancer were more likely to interpret ambiguous words as health‐related compared to healthy women (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 1.28). In women with cancer, FCR/P was associated with overall symptom burden (r = 0.25; p = 0.04) and interpretation bias score (r = 0.41; p = 0.001), but interpretation bias and symptom burden were not related (r = 0.22; p = 0.09). Interpretation bias did not moderate the relationship between symptoms and FCR/P. Conclusions We found that women with ovarian cancer interpreted ambiguous words as health related more often compared to women without cancer, and this bias was greater for women with higher FCR/P. Symptom burden was also associated with FCR/P. However, interpretation bias did not moderate the relationship between physical symptoms and FCR/P. Hence, the central tenet of the Cancer Threat Interpretation model was not supported in women with ovarian cancer.

Background The predominant definition of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) conflates FCR with fear of progression (FOP). However, this assumption has never been tested. Importantly, if FCR and FOP are distinct and have different predictors, existing interventions for FCR may not be equally effective for survivors who fear progression rather than recurrence of their disease. The present study aimed to determine whether FCR and FOP are empirically equivalent; and whether they are predicted by the same theoretically derived variables. Methods Three hundred and eleven adults with a history of breast or ovarian cancer were analysed (n = 209, 67% in remission). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the items of the FCR Inventory severity subscale and short‐form FOP Questionnaire together. Structural equation modelling was conducted to predict FCR and FOP and determine whether theoretical models accounted equally well for both constructs, and whether models were equally relevant to those with and without current disease. Findings The factor analysis demonstrated that the FCR Inventory severity subscale and the short‐form FOP Questionnaire loaded onto distinct, but related, factors which represented FCR and FOP. Structural modelling indicated that risk perception and bodily threat monitoring were more strongly associated with FCR than FOP. However, both FCR and FOP were associated with metacognitions and intrusions. Interpretation These findings suggest that whilst FCR and FOP are related with some overlapping predictors, they are not the same construct. Hence, it is necessary to ensure that in clinical practice and research these constructs are considered separately.

Objective: The Cancer Threat Interpretation model proposes that clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence/progression (FCR/P) can occur when people misinterpret ambiguous physical symptoms as a sign of recurrence. The aim of this research is to test whether interpretation biases moderate the relationship between pain and FCR/P in women with breast cancer, as predicted. Method: One hundred forty-seven women with breast cancer completed questionnaire measures of demographic and medical information, FCR/P, interpretation bias, and symptom burden, as well as other known predictors of FCR/P. Results: Women with clinically significant levels of FCR/P were more likely to interpret ambiguous words as health-related and experienced more pain than women with levels of FCR/P in the nonclinical range. FCR was associated with both pain (r = .40, p < .001) and interpretation bias (r = .45, p < .001). Interpretation bias and pain (r = .31, p < .001) were also associated with each other. Moderation analyses confirmed that interpretation bias moderated the relationship between pain and FCR (F(1, 143) = 5.76; p = .01). However, this was not the case with FOP (F(1, 143) = .21; p = .65). Conclusion: We found that women with breast cancer with clinically significant FCR/P interpreted ambiguous words as health-related more often and experienced more pain than those with nonclinical FCR/P. Moreover, we found that among those with higher levels of pain, FCR was also higher only among those with higher levels of interpretation bias, as the threat interpretation model predicts.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.Cognitive bias modification of interpretation improved pain severity and pain interference compared with placebo. Psychoeducation did not improve the efficacy of cognitive bias modification of interpretation.