Johanne Dam Lyhne, Pernille Bech, Eva Rames Nissen, Christina Maar Andersen, Anne Katrine Hartmann Søby, Brigitta R Villumsen, Henriette Vind Thaysen, Laura Sandholdt Jensen, Iben Husted Nielsen, Thea Otto Mattsson, Anne Johansen, Emma Skov Rahbæk, Ulrike Johansen, Frederik Lynge Overgaard, Lise Ventzel, Lars Henrik Jensen, Matteo Allegretti, Eriseld Krasniqi, Allan 'Ben' Smith, Anders Bonde Jensen
{"title":"Operationalizing fear of cancer recurrence care: a modified Delphi study establishing a consensus-based clinical pathway for Danish cancer survivors.","authors":"Johanne Dam Lyhne, Pernille Bech, Eva Rames Nissen, Christina Maar Andersen, Anne Katrine Hartmann Søby, Brigitta R Villumsen, Henriette Vind Thaysen, Laura Sandholdt Jensen, Iben Husted Nielsen, Thea Otto Mattsson, Anne Johansen, Emma Skov Rahbæk, Ulrike Johansen, Frederik Lynge Overgaard, Lise Ventzel, Lars Henrik Jensen, Matteo Allegretti, Eriseld Krasniqi, Allan 'Ben' Smith, Anders Bonde Jensen","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2026.46444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a prevalent concern among cancer survivors. Although evidence-based FCR guidelines exist, their implementation requires further operationalization. This study aimed to establish expert consensus on a clinical pathway to operationalize guideline-concordant FCR care in Denmark. Patient/material and methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted, comprising Round 0 and three Delphi rounds. In Round 1, 112 experts were invited, and 80 participated (71%) in an online survey rating proposed pathway statements. Twenty-seven participants attended a consensus workshop (Round 2) to discuss and refine statements not reaching consensus in Round 1. In Round 3, 71 participants (63%) re-rated the revised statements from Round 2. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Consensus was achieved for 10 statements in Round 1 and 6 revised or newly formulated statements in Round 3, including systematic screening of all cancer survivors with validated tools using a two-step approach, and initiation of screening at transition from treatment to follow-up. Consensus was achieved for need-based assessment guided by symptom severity and patient-expressed need. A matched-care model, aligning treatment intensity with FCR severity, achieved consensus in Round 1. Ongoing monitoring through re-screening during follow-up and post-intervention was endorsed. Timing of assessment and the management of FCR treatment non-response did not reach consensus.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>This Delphi study provides a consensus-based clinical pathway for FCR, including systematic screening, needs-based assessment, and matched-care allocation. The findings address key implementation gaps in existing FCR guidelines and offer a structured framework for integrating FCR care into routine practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"65 ","pages":"792-801"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13615413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2026.46444","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a prevalent concern among cancer survivors. Although evidence-based FCR guidelines exist, their implementation requires further operationalization. This study aimed to establish expert consensus on a clinical pathway to operationalize guideline-concordant FCR care in Denmark. Patient/material and methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted, comprising Round 0 and three Delphi rounds. In Round 1, 112 experts were invited, and 80 participated (71%) in an online survey rating proposed pathway statements. Twenty-seven participants attended a consensus workshop (Round 2) to discuss and refine statements not reaching consensus in Round 1. In Round 3, 71 participants (63%) re-rated the revised statements from Round 2. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement.
Results: Consensus was achieved for 10 statements in Round 1 and 6 revised or newly formulated statements in Round 3, including systematic screening of all cancer survivors with validated tools using a two-step approach, and initiation of screening at transition from treatment to follow-up. Consensus was achieved for need-based assessment guided by symptom severity and patient-expressed need. A matched-care model, aligning treatment intensity with FCR severity, achieved consensus in Round 1. Ongoing monitoring through re-screening during follow-up and post-intervention was endorsed. Timing of assessment and the management of FCR treatment non-response did not reach consensus.
Interpretation: This Delphi study provides a consensus-based clinical pathway for FCR, including systematic screening, needs-based assessment, and matched-care allocation. The findings address key implementation gaps in existing FCR guidelines and offer a structured framework for integrating FCR care into routine practice.
背景与目的:癌症复发恐惧(Fear of cancer recurrence, FCR)是癌症幸存者普遍关注的问题。尽管存在基于证据的FCR指南,但其实施需要进一步的操作化。本研究旨在建立专家共识的临床途径,以操作指南-一致的FCR护理在丹麦。患者/材料和方法:进行了一项改进的德尔菲研究,包括第0轮和3轮德尔菲研究。在第1轮中,邀请了112位专家,其中80位(71%)参与了在线调查,对建议的路径陈述进行评级。27名与会者参加了共识研讨会(第二轮),讨论和改进在第一轮中未达成共识的声明。在第三轮中,71名参与者(63%)重新评价了第二轮修改后的陈述。一致定义为≥80%的同意。结果:在第1轮和第6轮修订或新制定的陈述中,对10项陈述达成共识,包括使用两步法对所有癌症幸存者进行系统筛查,以及在从治疗过渡到随访时开始筛查。在以症状严重程度和患者表达的需求为指导的需求评估方面取得了共识。在第1轮中,将治疗强度与FCR严重程度相匹配的匹配护理模型达成了共识。通过在随访期间和干预后的重新筛查进行持续监测得到认可。评估时间和FCR治疗无反应的管理尚未达成共识。解释:本德尔菲研究为FCR提供了基于共识的临床途径,包括系统筛查、基于需求的评估和匹配护理分配。研究结果解决了现有FCR指南在实施方面的主要差距,并为将FCR护理纳入日常实践提供了一个结构化框架。
期刊介绍:
Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.