Many cancer survivors experience cognitive impairments that impact memory, concentration, speed of information processing, and decision making. These impairments, collectively known as cancer-related cognitive impairments (CRCIs), are a key domain of unmet needs and can significantly impact a cancer survivor’s identity and quality of life. However, there are no purpose-built, multi-domain, needs assessment tools specifically for CRCI. The development of such tools requires an in-depth understanding of cancer survivors’ CRCI-specific challenges and associated needs. This study explored the challenges and associated needs of cancer survivors with persistent CRCI. An in-depth qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with (a) cancer survivors with perceived CRCI (n = 32) and (b) oncology health professionals (n = 19) was utilised. A reflexive thematic analysis of the interviews resulted in five overarching themes: (1) executing regular activities, (2) relational difficulties, (3) occupational functioning, (4) psychological distress, and (5) social functioning, as well as an additional informational needs domain. Ultimately, CRCI was found to directly produce a range of challenges that negatively, and persistently, impact cancer survivors’ quality of life. Cancer survivors were also found to have a range of needs associated with these challenges. This research should be used to inform future challenges and needs assessment tools as well as treatment and supportive care priority areas directly relating to CRCI.

A significant proportion of cancer survivors will experience some form of mental health compromise across domains including mood, anxiety, psychosis, eating disorders, and substance use. This psychopathology within cancer survivors is related to a range of negative outcomes and can also have a substantial negative impact on quality of life. Along with psychopathology, cognitive impairments are also commonly experienced, resulting in deficits in memory, reasoning, decision-making, speed of processing, and concentration, collectively referred to as cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). Within the non-oncology literature, cognitive deficits are consistently demonstrated to be a key transdiagnostic aetiological feature of psychopathology, functionally contributing to the development and perpetuation of symptoms. Whilst there is an acknowledgement of the role mental health concerns might play in the development of and perception of CRCI, there has been limited acknowledgement and research exploring the potential for CRCI to functionally contribute toward the development of transdiagnostic psychopathology in cancer survivors beyond simply psychosocial distress. Given the theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting cognitive deficits to be an aetiological factor in psychopathology, we provide a rationale for the potential for CRCI to be a factor in the development and perpetuation of transdiagnostic psychopathology in cancer survivors. This potential functional association has significant implications for risk identification, prevention, treatment, and supportive cancer care approaches regarding psychopathology in cancer survivorship. We conclude by providing directions for future research in this area.

Neurocognitive deficits have been consistently associated with a wide range of psychopathology and are proposed to not only be a consequence of the development of psychopathology but also directly involved in its aetiology. However, there is no clear understanding of what neurocognitive processes are particularly important to mental health. In this paper, we explored the association between neurocognitive abilities and the factors derived from structural models of psychopathology. Four hundred participants from a representative community sample completed measures of symptomology and substance use, as well as 8 neurocognitive tasks. We found a correlated-factors model, with internalising and externalising as the higher-order factors, and a single-factor model with only the p-factor, to be good fits for the data. Tasks that measured the speed of processing were significantly associated with internalising, externalising, and the p-factor, and accounted for significant amounts of unique variance in the factors after accounting for the common variance of the other tasks. Tasks that measured working memory, shifting, and inhibition were not significantly associated with psychopathology factors. Our findings suggest that neurocognitive abilities may not be differentially associated with psychopathology factors, but that speed of processing is a common correlate of the factors. We emphasise the importance of examining neurocognitive abilities and psychopathology on the individual level.

Purpose: A significant number of cancer survivors experience cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), which can impact their ability to think, reason, make decisions, and perform daily actions. In recent years, non-pharmacological interventions for CRCI have gained significant attention. These interventions include exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy, cognitive training/remediation, dietary, mind–body, and multi-modal/complex interventions. This umbrella review provides a critical overview to inform guidelines and current practice, identify the most promising interventions, and uncover gaps in the research literature. Methods: This umbrella review of systematic reviews was pre-registered on Open Science Framework and PROSPERO. Six databases were searched. Systematic reviews (SR) assessing any non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognition in cancer (any type) were included. The overview followed gold-standard guidelines and recommendations. The results were narratively synthesised, and descriptive statistics and effect size ranges were calculated. Results: Sixty-four (n = 64) SRs were included. Results were synthesised into four non-pharmacological domains. Cognitive training/rehabilitation had the strongest evidence for efficacy. Physical activity/exercise showed promising efficacy; however, the variability of findings was considerable. Mind–body and psychological/behavioural therapy interventions were limited, but there was evidence for short-term effectiveness. Multi-modal/complex interventions showed potential for improving cognition in cancer but were poorly defined. Conclusions: Overall, non-pharmacological interventions demonstrated efficacy for improving cognition in cancer. There were limited intervention characteristics within domains which were consistently related to efficacy. Three key recommendations are provided for future research: (1) adopt harmonisation and reporting guidelines; (2) develop definitional guidelines of cognitive domains for CRCI research; and (3) assess intervention and participant characteristics associated with positive versus null/negative findings.