Association Between Daily Worry, Pathological Worry, and Fear of Progression in Patients With Cancer

Background: Fear of progression (FoP), or fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), is characterized by worries or concerns about negative illness-related future events. Actually, to worry is a common cognitive process that, in its non-pathological form, belongs to daily life. However, worry can also become pathological appearing as a symptom of mental disorders. This study aimed at investigating the associations among daily worry, pathological worry, and FoP in patients with cancer.Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that includes 328 hospitalized patients with cancer. Patients filled out the FoP Questionnaire (FoP-Q), the Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ) for the assessment of daily worry, and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) for the assessment of pathological worry. Depressive, anxiety, and somatic symptoms were measured with modules of the Patient Health Questionnaire [Patient Health Questionnaire-Depressive Symptoms (PHQ-2), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), and Patient Health Questionnaire-Somatic Symptoms (PHQ-15)]. Furthermore, a structured clinical interview was conducted for the assessment of anxiety disorders. The hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify factors independently associated with FoP.Results: Mean age of the participants was M = 58.5 years (SD = 12.8), and 64.6% were men. FoP and worry were significantly intercorrelated (r = 0.58–0.78). The level of FoP was most strongly associated with daily worry (β = 0.514, p < 0.001), followed by pathological worry (β = 0.221, p < 0.001). Further significant determinants were younger age and depressive and anxiety symptoms. Clinical variables were not independently associated with FoP. The final model explained 74% of the variance.Discussion: Fear of progression is strongly associated with daily worry and pathological worry. These results bring up the question of whether FoP is an expression of a general tendency to worry. Whether a general tendency to worry, in fact, represents an independent vulnerability factor for experiencing FCR/FoP needs to be investigated in a longitudinal research design.

A brief scale of pathological worry that everyone already has

Worry is a central process in a wide range of psychopathological and somatic conditions. Three studies (N = 856) were used to test whether a subscale composed of five items of the most commonly used trait anxiety questionnaire, Spielberger’s State Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait version (STAI-T), is appropriate to measure worry. Results showed that the subscale, named the Brief Worry Scale (BWS), had excellent internal consistency and temporal stability. Convergent and divergent validity were supported by correlation analyses using worry questionnaires and measures of anxious arousal and depression. The BWS was a particularly good predictor of the pathogenic aspects of worry, including worry perseveration in daily life (study 1), measures of clinical worry (study 2) and the uncontrollability of experimentally induced worry (study 3). Taken together, these studies demonstrate that the BWS might be a valuable scale for pathological worry, for which many researchers already have data.

Within-person increase in pathological worry predicts future depletion of unique executive functioning domains

Background Affective neuroscience and scar theories propose that increased excessive worry, the hallmark symptom of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), predicts future declines in executive functioning (EF). However, the preponderance of cross-sectional designs used to examine between-person chronic worry–EF relationships has blocked progress on understanding their potentially causal within-person associations. Accordingly, this study used bivariate dual latent change score (LCS) models to test whether within-person increased GAD severity might relate to future reduced EF. Methods Community-dwelling adults (N = 2581, 46 years on average, s.d. = 11.40, 54.71% female) were assessed for GAD symptom severity (Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form) across three waves, spaced about 9 years apart. Three aspects of EF [inhibition, set-shifting, and mixing costs (MCs; a measure related to common EF)], were assessed with stop-and-go switch tasks. Participants responded to 20 normal and 20 reverse single-task block trials and 32 mixed-task switch block trials. EF tests were administered at time 2 (T2) and time 3 (T3), but not at time 1 (T1). Results After controlling for T1 depression, LCS models revealed that within-person increased T1 − T2 GAD severity substantially predicted future reduced T2 − T3 inhibition and set-shifting (both indexed by accuracy and latency), and MC (indexed by latency) with moderate-to-large effect sizes (|d| = 0.51–0.96). Conclusions Results largely support scar theories by offering preliminary within-person, naturalistic evidence that heightened excessive worry can negatively predict future distinct aspects of cognitive flexibility. Effectively targeting pathological worry might prevent difficulties arising from executive dysfunction.