Facilitating adaptive coping with fear of recurrence among breast cancer survivors: Feasibility and acceptability outcomes from a three-arm randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Shelley A. Johns, Yang Li, Matthew E. Hays, Jonathan B. Bricker, Kathy Miller
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2024)

1630 Background: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is one of the most prevalent and disruptive problems for breast cancer survivors (BCS). Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have shown promising effects for FCR in a recent meta-analysis, yet head-to-head comparisons of these interventions are rare. We present feasibility and acceptability outcomes from a randomized controlled trial comparing ACT to CBT and enhanced usual care (EUC) for BCS with clinically significant FCR. Methods: Eligible women were ≥18 years old, diagnosed with stage I-IIIA breast cancer, within 5 years of completing cancer treatment (ongoing endocrine therapy was allowed), and reported clinical FCR at enrollment. Participants were randomly assigned to group-based ACT, CBT, or EUC, all delivered via videoconference. ACT and CBT consisted of 6 weekly 1.5-hour sessions; EUC was a single 1.5-hour survivorship coaching session. Outcomes included accrual, session attendance and engagement, intervention helpfulness, and retention. Variables were summarized by mean (SD) if numerical or relative frequency if categorical. At significance level α = 0.05, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare overall differences between the three groups, and two-sample T-tests with unequal variances were used for pairwise comparisons between the groups with Bonferroni multiple-comparison adjustment. Results: Of 446 BCS who screened eligible, 390 (87.4%) enrolled. Most participants were white (81.8%), not Hispanic (98.4%), partnered (68.4%), and college-educated (71.3%). Most were within 2 years of completing cancer treatment (55.7%), and mean age was 55.8 (SD = 12.0) years. Among those assigned to a 6-session intervention, participants attended a mean of 5.0 (ACT) and 5.2 (CBT) sessions; 96.1% of EUC participants attended the single session. Mean session engagement (rated per participant per session by interventionists on a 0-10 scale) was significantly different across the three groups (p &lt; .0001), with mean (SD) of 9.3 (0.8) for ACT, 9.5 (1.0) for CBT, and 7.9 (1.3) for EUC. Pairwise comparisons showed higher engagement ratings in ACT (p &lt; .0001) and CBT (p &lt; .0001) over EUC, with no significant difference between ACT and CBT (p = .14). At post-intervention, participants rated mean (SD) helpfulness on a 0-10 scale as 7.2 (2.6) for ACT, 7.9 (2.0) for CBT, and 5.5 (2.7) for EUC. Overall, mean helpfulness was significantly different across the groups (p &lt; .0001) and favored CBT over ACT (p = .0109) and EUC (p &lt; .001) and favored ACT over EUC (p &lt; 0.001). Outcome data retention was 93.8% through the 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: High accrual and attendance rates suggest that BCS are receptive to FCR interventions and may find ACT or CBT more engaging and helpful than a single session of survivorship coaching. Clinical trial information: NCT05364450 .