AbstractBackgroundThe predominant definition of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) conflates FCR with fear of progression (FOP). However, this assumption has never been tested. Importantly, if FCR and FOP are distinct and have different predictors, existing interventions for FCR may not be equally effective for survivors who fear progression rather than recurrence of their disease. The present study aimed to determine whether FCR and FOP are empirically equivalent; and whether they are predicted by the same theoretically derived variables.MethodsThree hundred and eleven adults with a history of breast or ovarian cancer were analysed (n = 209, 67% in remission). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the items of the FCR Inventory severity subscale and short‐form FOP Questionnaire together. Structural equation modelling was conducted to predict FCR and FOP and determine whether theoretical models accounted equally well for both constructs, and whether models were equally relevant to those with and without current disease.FindingsThe factor analysis demonstrated that the FCR Inventory severity subscale and the short‐form FOP Questionnaire loaded onto distinct, but related, factors which represented FCR and FOP. Structural modelling indicated that risk perception and bodily threat monitoring were more strongly associated with FCR than FOP. However, both FCR and FOP were associated with metacognitions and intrusions.InterpretationThese findings suggest that whilst FCR and FOP are related with some overlapping predictors, they are not the same construct. Hence, it is necessary to ensure that in clinical practice and research these constructs are considered separately.