ClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT06554899Updated Aug 21, 2024

CIFeR - A Clinician-led Intervention to Address Fear of Cancer Recurrence

An interventional study of Clinician-led intervention to address fear of cancer recurrence (CIFeR) in Fear of Cancer Recurrence, sponsored by Aarhus University Hospital. Status unknown at 1 site in Denmark. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-08-21.

Sponsored by Aarhus University Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Aug 2024), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
300
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The investigators will test a novel Clinician-led Intervention to address Fear of cancer Recurrence in cancer survivors (CIFeR), by 1) adapting the original Australian intervention manual to the Danish oncology context (CIFeR-DK), and 2) developing a brief e-learning program to train oncologists. The investigators will then 3) compare CIFeR-DK with an active control condition in a cluster-randomized controlled trial with 24 oncologists (the cluster unit) treating a minimum of 300 patients with breast, ovarian, lung and prostate cancer at Danish Oncology Departments at four hospitals in Aarhus, Vejle, Aalborg, and Copenhagen, and 4) explore fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and perceived barriers and facilitators to use the intervention in routine follow-up care.

Read the detailed description

STUDY DESIGN:

The study is designed as a parallel cluster-randomized controlled trial with oncologists (cluster unit) treating breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer at the oncology departments at Aarhus University Hospital (AUH), Vejle Hospital (VH), Aalborg University Hospital (AAUH), and Copenhagen University Hospital (CUH), and randomized 1:1 to intervention versus active control.

Participants:

All oncologists treating breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer at the participating departments are eligible for the study and will be recruited by our collaborators at the participating departments. Eligible patients score >= 13 on the FCRI-SF and have completed their primary treatment i.e., surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy, for breast, ovarian, lung and prostate cancer at the participating departments between three weeks and three months previously.

Procedure:

Patients scheduled for a follow-up visit with the participating oncologists will receive a secure e-mail invitation to participate in the study and a link to a RedCap questionnaire. Patients willing to participate will provide their informed consent electronically and complete the 9-item FCRI-SF. Patients scoring >= 13 are provided with additional information about the study and asked for their consent to participate.

One week before the planned follow-up consultation, they will be asked to complete a RedCap baseline questionnaire (T1). One week and three months after the consultation, the patients will be asked to complete the RedCap post-intervention (T2) and follow-up questionnaires (T3).

Oncologists will complete a RedCap baseline questionnaire assessing age, gender, years of experience, and self-efficacy in managing patient FCR. Oncologists will then be allocated to the intervention or active control arm using a stratified randomization sequence generated by the Aarhus University clinical trial unit ensuring a balanced allocation of oncologists according to the cancer type treated. Oncologists will then receive a link to online CIFeR training and report their post-training self-efficacy for managing patient FCR. During the consultation, the oncologist will deliver the CIFeR intervention and complete a brief 5-item checklist on whether they delivered all five components and, if not, why. After including all patients, the oncologist is asked to complete a follow-up RedCap questionnaire on self-efficacy in managing patient FCR.

The CIFeR intervention:

The intervention includes five components informed by theoretical models and existing interventions for FCR: 1) FCR normalization: reassurance that FCR is a common and normal phenomenon after treatment for cancer, 2) Providing prognostic information: asking patients whether they would like information about their risk of recurrence and, if yes, providing this information, 3) Providing education and take-home information on red-flag recurrence symptoms, 4) Brief advice on managing worry: distraction, meditation, mindfulness, reassurance, and links to online resources to manage FCR, and 5) referral to a psychologist if FCR is high (FCRI-SF >= 22), or if deemed helpful by the patient or clinician. Access will be provided to ConquerFear-Group delivered online by trained psycho-oncologists.

Outcome measures:

Patients:

The primary outcome is the change in FCR, assessed with the 9-item Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory Short Form (FCRI-SF). Secondary outcomes include a) anxiety and depression assessed with the The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), b) patient reported intervention usefulness assessed with the Patient Centered Communication Scale (PCC), c) metacognition assessed with the metacognitions questionnaire (MCQ-30), d) unmet needs assessed with Subscale of the Survivors Unmet Need Survey (SUNS-8), e) rumination assessed with the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ), and f) General Quality of Life (QoL) assessed with the EQ-5D for later use in cost-effectiveness analysis. All measures will be completed at all three time-points (T1-T3).

At six months, the investigators will ask a subset of 15-20 patients to participate in a semi-structured phone interview about their experience with the intervention.

Oncologists:

Oncologists complete a general item on self-efficacy in managing patient FCR together with the 27-item Self-efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (SEPCQ-27) at baseline, post-training (only oncologists in the intervention group), and after completed inclusion. Based on a suggested framework for implementation outcomes, the investigators will assess with 11-point scales: 1) acceptability, 2) appropriateness, 3) feasibility, together with 4) fidelity, measured as the average number of components oncologists report having delivered to patients, and 5) sustainability measured as the proportion of oncologists in the intervention group who report having used CIFeR at least once within the last three months, measured six months after completed inclusion. Six months after the inclusion of their last patient, all oncologists will be asked to participate in a semi-structured interview and provide feedback on the CIFeR-training and their experiences with the intervention, including perceived utility and the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing CIFeR in routine care. The investigators will also examine CIFeR e-training analytics regarding access and time spent on the various parts.

02

Conditions studied

  • Fear of Cancer Recurrence
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Aarhus University Hospital is the lead sponsor of 295 studies on the registry; 81 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Are ≥ 18 years old
  • Have completed their primary treatment, i.e., surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy, for breast, ovarian, prostate, or lung cancer at the participating departments between three weeks and three months previously.
  • Score >= 13 on the FCRI-SF

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

-

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
300 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Intervention (delivering CIFeR)

    At the patient's first follow-up appointment after anti-cancer treatment, oncologists will, in addition to the usual follow-up procedure, deliver a brief psychological intervention (CIFeR)

    Other: Clinician-led intervention to address fear of cancer recurrence (CIFeR)

  • No intervention
    Control (treatment as usual)

    At the patients first follow-up appointment after anti-cancer treatment, oncologists will deliver treatment as usual (the usual follow-up procedure)

Interventions

  • OtherClinician-led intervention to address fear of cancer recurrence (CIFeR)

    The intervention includes five components informed by theoretical models and existing interventions for FCR: 1) FCR normalization: reassurance that FCR is a common and normal phenomenon after treatment for cancer, 2) Providing prognostic information: asking patients whether they would like information about their risk of recurrence and, if yes,providing this information, 3) Providing education and take-home information on red-flag recurrence symptoms, 4) Brief advice on managing worry: distraction, meditation, mindfulness, reassurance, and links to online resources to manage FCR, and 5) referral to a psychologist if FCR is high (FCRI-SF \>= 22), or if deemed helpful by the patient or clinician. Access will be provided to ConquerFear-Group delivered online by trained psychologists.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Fear of cancer recurrence

    Assessed with the 9-item Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory Short Form (FCRI-SF), range 0-36. Higher scores indicate worse outcome

    Time frame: T1 (2 weeks prior to intervention), T2 (one week post intervention), T3 (three months post intervention)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Anxiety and depression

    Assessed with the The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), range 0-21. Higher scores indicate worse outcome

    Time frame: T1 (2 weeks prior to intervention), T2 (one week post intervention), T3 (three months post intervention)

  2. Patient reported intervention usefulness

    Assessed with the Patient Centered Communication Scale (PCC), range 7-28. Lower scores indicate worse outcome.

    Time frame: T1 (2 weeks prior to intervention), T2 (one week post intervention), T3 (three months post intervention)

  3. Metacognition

    Assessed with the metacognitions questionnaire (MCQ-30). The MCQ-30 assesses various aspects of metacognition, including subscales: cognitive confidence, positive beliefs, cognitive self-consciousness, uncontrollability and danger, and the need to control thoughts. Subscale scores range from 6 to 24. Higher scores indicate greater conviction in metacognitive beliefs.

    Time frame: T1 (2 weeks prior to intervention), T2 (one week post intervention), T3 (three months post intervention)

  4. Unmet needs

    Assessed with Subscale of the Survivors Unmet Need Survey (SUNS-8), range 0-32. Higher scores indicate worse outcome.

    Time frame: T1 (2 weeks prior to intervention), T2 (one week post intervention), T3 (three months post intervention)

  5. Rumination

    Assessed with the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ), range 5-25. Higher scores indicate worse outcome.

    Time frame: T1 (2 weeks prior to intervention), T2 (one week post intervention), T3 (three months post intervention)

  6. General Quality of Life (QoL)

    Assessed with the EuroQol Group Association EQ-5D-L5, representing five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression) with each five severity levels. Higher levels indicate worse outcome.

    Time frame: T1 (2 weeks prior to intervention), T2 (one week post intervention), T3 (three months post intervention)

Other outcomes

  1. Self-efficacy (Oncologists)

    27-item Self-efficacy in Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (SEPCQ-27), range 0-108. Higher scores indicate better outcome.

    Time frame: At Baseline, post-training (1-3 weeks post inclusion)(only oncologists in the intervention group), and after completed inclusion of patients (time frame depends on inclusion rate).

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Aarhus University Hospital
    Aarhus, 8200, Denmark
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Data will be available upon request an in accordance with the GDPR regulations

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form, Clinical study report, Analytic code

Time frame: Data will be available upon request from time of publication and 5 year post publication

Access criteria: Written request to the primary investigator

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Started Jun 2024 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2025, 17 months after the start.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jun 14, 2024
First posted
Aug 15, 2024
StartActual
Jun 14, 2024
Primary completionEst.
Dec 1, 2025
CompletionEst.
Jun 1, 2026
Last update
Aug 21, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 21, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06554899
Responsible party
Prof. Robert (Bobby) Zachariae (Professor, Aarhus University Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 15, 2024
Start date
Jun 14, 2024
Primary completion
Dec 1, 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 1, 2026 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 21, 2024

Study contacts

Eva Rames Nissen, PhD
Contact
enissen@oncology.au.dk
+4587162674
Louise Strøm, PhD
Contact
louisestroem@concology.au.dk
Robert Zachariae, Professsor
principal investigator · Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Aug 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion