Search

Background: Regular surveillance imaging is commonly used after curative-intent resection of most solid-organ cancers to enable prompt diagnosis and management of recurrent disease. Given the fear of cancer recurrence, surveillance may lead to distress and anxiety ("scanxiety") but its frequency, severity, and management among cancer survivors are poorly understood., Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases was conducted to evaluate existing literature on anxiety and emotional experiences associated with surveillance after curative-intent cancer surgery as well as interventions aimed at reducing scanxiety., Results: Across the 22 included studies encompassing 8693 patients, reported rates of scanxiety varied significantly, but tended to decrease as time elapsed after surgery. Qualitative studies showed that scanxiety arises from various factors innate to the surveillance experience and is most prevalent in the scan-to-results waiting period. Common risk factors for scanxiety included sociodemographic and cancer-related characteristics, low coping self-efficacy, pre-existing anxiety, and low patient well-being. Conversely, reassurance was a positive aspect of surveillance reported in several studies. Trials evaluating the impact of interventions all focused on modifying the surveillance regimen compared with usual care, but none led to reduced rates of scanxiety., Conclusions: Although scanxiety is nearly universal across multiple cancer types and patient populations, it is transient and generally limited in severity. Because existing trials evaluating interventions to reduce scanxiety have not identified effective strategies to date, future research is needed to identify interventions aimed at reducing their impact on high-risk individuals., Competing Interests: Disclosure: There are no conflict of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: This review aimed to assess the measurement and reporting of time toxicity (i.e., time spent receiving care) within prospective oncologic studies., Methods: On July 23, 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were queried for prospective or randomized controlled trials (RCT) from 1984 to 2023 that reported time toxicity as a primary or secondary outcome for oncologic treatments or interventions. Secondary analyses of RCTs were included if they reported time toxicity. The included studies were then evaluated for how they reported and defined time toxicity., Results: The initial query identified 883 records, with 10 studies (3 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 5 secondary analyses of RCTs) meeting the final inclusion criteria. Treatment interventions included surgery (n = 5), systemic therapies (n = 4), and specialized palliative care (n = 1). The metric "days alive and out of the hospital" was used by 80% (n = 4) of the surgical studies. Three of the surgical studies did not include time spent receiving ambulatory care within the calculation of time toxicity. "Time spent at home" was assessed by three studies (30%), each using different definitions. The five secondary analyses from RCTs used more comprehensive metrics that included time spent receiving both inpatient and ambulatory care., Conclusions: Time toxicity is infrequently reported within oncologic clinical trials, with no standardized definition, metric, or methodology. Further research is needed to identify best practices in the measurement and reporting of time toxicity to develop strategies that can be implemented to reduce its burden on patients seeking cancer care., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)