Anxiety and fear are often associated with chronic conditions such as cancer. This paper targets the cost-effectiveness analysis of a cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBT) in comparison to a client-centered, supportive-experiential group therapy (SET) in cancer patients with dysfunctional fear of progression. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from a randomized controlled trial among cancer patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation. The means, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI], incremental cost-effectiveness graphic and acceptability curve were obtained from 1,000 bootstrap replications. A total of 174 patients were included in the economic evaluation. The estimated means [95% CI] of direct costs and reduction of fear of progression were <euro>9,045.03 [6,359.07; 12,091.87] and 1.41 [0.93; 1.92] for patients in the SET and <euro>6,682.78 [4,998.09; 8,440.95] and 1.44 [1.02; 1.09] for patients in the CBT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [95% CI] amounts to minus <euro>78,741.66 [-154,987.20; 110,486.32] for an additional unit of effect. Given the acceptability curve, there is a 92.4% chance that the CBT, compared with the SET, is cost-effective without the need of additional costs to payers. Our main result is the superior cost-effectiveness of the cognitive-behavioral intervention program in comparison to the non-directive encounter group for our sample of cancer patients with high levels of anxiety.