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).

The role of dexamethasone to reduce delayed emesis following highly emetogenic chemotherapy is proven, but there is less evidence of benefit after mild-moderately emetogenic regimens. Here, we develop and evaluate a Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) to assess the side effects of dexamethasone in the week after patients receive moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The DSQ was first optimised with the aid of a focus group. Sixty patients receiving oral dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer completed and then evaluated the DSQ. Patients reported that the DSQ was clearly worded and addressed items important to them. Patients receiving dexamethasone reported moderate-severe problems with insomnia (45%), indigestion/epigastric discomfort (27%), agitation (27%), increased appetite (19%), weight gain (16%) and acne (15%) in the week following chemotherapy. The side effects of dexamethasone may outweigh its benefits when used with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. A randomised, double-blind crossover trial is underway to determine the effect of dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting, and the impact of side effects of dexamethasone and of nausea and vomiting on quality of life.

Many patients with prostate cancer receive androgen deprivation therapy for long periods. We compared physical and cognitive function, and quality of life in a cross-sectional study of 57 patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer and 51 healthy age matched controls. Physical and daily function were measured by the 6-minute walk test, grip strength, the timed up and go test, and activities of daily living measures. Cognitive function was evaluated by the High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen and by a self-report prototype Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy cognitive function subscale. Quality of life was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General with the subscale for fatigue and by the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale. Androgen deprivation therapy was given for a median of 1.8 years (range 0.4 to 7.4). Patients had lower median hemoglobin than controls (134 vs 148 gm/l, p <0.0001). Performance on physical tests was similar in the 2 groups. Moderate or severe cognitive impairment by the High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen was similar for patients (23%) and controls (35%, p = 0.2). Self-reported cognitive dysfunction was also similar. Scores for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General were similar but the Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale summary score was worse for patients (median 71 vs 86, p <0.001). More patients reported severe fatigue (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue score less than 35, p = 0.03). Low energy, poor bladder control and loss of sexual function were reported in 36%, 47% and 95% of patients, and in 16%, 34% and 33% of controls, respectively. Patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy experience more symptoms and have worse fatigue than controls, but this study did not detect any effect on physical or cognitive function.

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.

Gynecological cancer (GC) survivors have unmet needs when they complete primary cancer treatment. Despite this, no known research has summarized these needs and survivors' suggestions to address them. We conducted a scoping review to fill these gaps and develop a model useful to guide clinical discussions and/or interventions. English, full length, and accessible primary studies describing the needs of GC survivors were included. No restrictions on date nor country of publication were applied. Two reviewers screened and extracted data, which was verified by a third reviewer. Seventy-one studies met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Results were thematically grouped into seven dimensions: physical needs, sexuality-related concerns, altered self-image, psychological wellbeing, social support needs, supporting the return to work, and healthcare challenges and preferences. After consulting with a stakeholder group (a GC survivor, clinicians, and researchers), the dimensions were summarized into a proposed model to guide clinical assessments and/or interventions. Results illuminate the diverse needs of GC survivors as they complete primary cancer treatment and their recommendations for care to meet these needs. The resulting model can be used to guide assessments, discussions and/or interventions to optimally prepare GC survivors for transition out of primary cancer treatment.

Cancer patients’ attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients’ willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients’ reasons for their preferences. A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients’ decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings. In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants’ attitudes and values. Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.