Self-reported health, lifestyle and social circumstances of Australian adult cancer survivors: A propensity score weighted cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: With the prevalence of cancer survivors increasing, their unique needs must be better understood. We examined the health, lifestyles and social circumstances of adults with and without a history of cancer. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, using exposure and outcome data from the baseline survey (2006-2009) of participants in the 45 and Up Study, a prospective cohort study in New South Wales, Australia. We compared 20,811 cancer registry-verified adult cancer survivors with 207,148 participants without a history of cancer using propensity score weighting and accounting for multiple testing. The propensity weighting included age, sociodemographic factors and number of self-reported co-morbidities. RESULTS: Cancer survivors were more likely to report poorer physical and psychological health and quality of life compared to those without a cancer history, with most deficits still evident more than 10 years after cancer diagnosis. Cancer survivors were more likely to have a higher body mass index, but were less likely to smoke. Cancer survivors had greater functional limitations, including sexual, and were less likely to work full time, volunteer and spend time outdoors. Their social connectedness was, however, similar. Those with haematological cancer, lung cancer, or distant metastases, and those diagnosed at an older age, had the greatest health deficits and functional limitations. CONCLUSIONS: A history of cancer is associated with poorer health and less paid and unpaid work. Our findings reinforce the importance of routine long-term, integrated multidisciplinary care for cancer survivors and indicate the subgroups with the greatest unmet needs.

Exploring the screening capacity of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form for clinical levels of fear of cancer recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a common concern among cancer survivors. Identifying survivors with clinically significant FCR requires validated screening measures and clinical cut-offs. We evaluated the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF) clinical cut-off in 2 samples. METHODS: Level of FCR in study 1 participants (from an Australian randomized controlled trial: ConquerFear) was compared with FCRI-SF scores. Based on a biopsychosocial interview, clinicians rated participants as having nonclinical, subclinical, or clinical FCR. Study 2 participants (from a Canadian FCRI-English validation study) were classified as having clinical or nonclinical FCR by using the semistructured clinical interview for FCR (SIFCR). Receiver operating characteristic analyses evaluated the screening ability of the FCRI-SF against clinician ratings (study 1) and the SIFCR (study 2). RESULTS: In study 1, 167 cancer survivors (mean age: 53 years, SD = 10.1) participated. Clinicians rated 43% as having clinical FCR. In study 2, 40 cancer survivors (mean age: 68 years, SD = 7.0) participated; 25% met criteria for clinical FCR according to the SIFCR. For both studies 1 and 2, receiver operating characteristic analyses suggested a cut-off ≥22 on the FCRI-SF identified cancer survivors with clinical levels of FCR with adequate sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing clinical cut-offs on FCR screening measures is crucial to tailoring individual care and conducting rigorous research. Our results suggest using a higher cut-off on the FCRI-SF than previously reported to identify clinically significant FCR. Continued evaluation and validation of the FCRI-SF cut-off is required across diverse cancer populations.