The bodily threat monitoring scale: Development and preliminary validation in adult and childhood cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Bodily threat monitoring is a core clinical feature of Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and is targeted in psycho-oncology treatments, yet no comprehensive self-report measure exists. The aim of this study was the theory-informed development and initial validation of the Bodily Threat Monitoring Scale (BTMS). METHODS: Adult survivors of breast and gynaecological cancers (Study 1: N = 306, age = 37-81 years) and childhood cancer survivors (Study 2: N = 126, age = 10-25 years) completed the BTMS, designed to assess how individuals monitor for and interpret uncertain symptoms as indicating that something is wrong with their body. Participants completed measures to assess construct and criterion validity of the BTMS, and childhood cancer survivors (Study 2) completed the BTMS again 2 weeks later to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The 19-item BTMS demonstrated excellent internal consistency across adult and childhood cancer samples (α = 0.90-0.96). Factor analyses indicated two subscales capturing 1. Monitoring of bodily sensations and 2. Threatening interpretations of bodily sensations. Two-week stability estimates were acceptable. For construct validity, the BTMS correlated with body vigilance and anxiety sensitivity. The BTMS also demonstrated criterion validity, yielding significant associations with FCR, intolerance of uncertainty, help-seeking behaviours, and quality of life. The BTMS was associated with FCR while controlling for body vigilance and anxiety sensitivity, indicating a unique contribution of this theory-informed measure. CONCLUSIONS: The BTMS shows evidence of sound psychometric properties and could be used to elucidate the role of bodily threat monitoring in the maintenance and management of FCR.

A double-blind phase II randomized controlled trial of an online cognitive bias modification for interpretation program with and without psychoeducation for people with chronic pain.

ABSTRACT: Cognitive bias modification for interpretation (CBM-I) is an effective intervention for anxiety, but there is only a single trial in people with chronic pain. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to test CBM-I with and without psychoeducation for people with chronic pain. We randomized 288 participants to 4 groups comprising treatment (CBM-I vs placebo) with or without psychoeducation. One hundred and eighty-three participants (64%) completed 4, 15-minute training sessions over 2 weeks. The coprimary outcomes were pain interference and pain intensity. We also measured interpretation bias, fear of movement, catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and stress. Participants with more psychopathology at baseline were more likely to dropout, as were those allocated to psychoeducation. Intention-to-treat analyses using linear mixed models regression were conducted. Training effects of CBM-I were found on interpretation bias, but not a near-transfer task. Cognitive bias modification of interpretation improved both primary outcomes compared with placebo. For pain interference, there was also a main effect favoring psychoeducation. The CBM-I group improved significantly more than placebo for fear of movement, but not catastrophizing, depression, or anxiety. Cognitive bias modification of interpretation reduced stress but only for those who also received psychoeducation. This trial shows that CBM-I has promise in the management of pain, but there was limited evidence that psychoeducation improved the efficacy of CBM-I. Cognitive bias modification of interpretation was administered entirely remotely and is highly scalable, but future research should focus on paradigms that lead to better engagement of people with chronic pain with CBM-I.

Does interpretation bias moderate the relationship between pain and fear of cancer recurrence?

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Are fear of cancer recurrence and fear of progression equivalent constructs?

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.

Towards a Stepped Care Model for Managing Fear of Cancer Recurrence or Progression in Cancer Survivors.

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.

The role of interpretation biases and symptom burden in fear of cancer recurrence/progression among ovarian cancer survivors.

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.

Is a Brief Online Booklet Sufficient to Reduce Fear of Cancer Recurrence or Progression in Women With Ovarian Cancer?

Background: Fear of cancer recurrence or progression (FCR/P) is a common challenge experienced by people living with and beyond cancer and is frequently endorsed as the highest unmet psychosocial need amongst survivors. This has prompted many cancer organizations to develop self-help resources for survivors to better manage these fears through psychoeducation, but little is known about whether they help reduce FCR/P. Method: We recruited 62 women with ovarian cancer. Women reported on their medical history and demographic characteristics and completed the Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form (FoP-Q-SF). They then read a booklet on FCR specifically created for Ovarian Cancer Australia by two of the authors (ABS and PB). One week after reading the booklet, 50/62 women (81%) completed the FoP-Q-SF and answered questions about their satisfaction with the booklet. Results: More than half of the women (35/62; 56.5%) scored in the clinical range for FCR/P at baseline. Of the completers, 93% said that they would recommend the booklet to other women. Satisfaction with the booklet was relatively high (75.3/100) and more than two-thirds of women rated it as moderately helpful or better. However, FCR/P did not change significantly over the week following reading the booklet [t (49) = 1.71, p = 0.09]. There was also no difference in change in FCR/P between women in the clinical vs. non-clinical range on the FoP-Q. Women high in FCR/P rated the booklet as less helpful in managing FCR/P (r = -0.316, p = 0.03), but overall satisfaction with the booklet was not associated with degree of FCR/P (r = -0.24, p = 0.10). Conclusions: These results suggest that a simple online FCR booklet is acceptable to women with ovarian cancer and they are satisfied with the booklet, but, it was insufficient to change in FCR/P levels. These results suggest that such resources are valued by women with ovarian cancer, but more potent interventions are necessary to reduce FCR in this population.