Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27747478›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) focused on adverse events (PRO-AEs) in adjuvant and metastatic breast cancer: clinical and translational implications.

Stefan Stefanovic, Markus Wallwiener, Uros Karic, Christoph Domschke, Luka Katic, Florin-Andrei Taran, Aleksandra Pesic, Andreas Hartkopf, Peyman Hadji, Martin Teufel and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Stefan StefanovicDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus WallwienerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. markus.wallwiener@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Uros KaricIMDI Science Center, International Medical Diplomacy Institute, Vodovodska 27a, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia.
Christoph DomschkeDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Luka KaticIMDI Science Center, International Medical Diplomacy Institute, Vodovodska 27a, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia.
Florin-Andrei TaranDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Aleksandra PesicIMDI Science Center, International Medical Diplomacy Institute, Vodovodska 27a, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia.
Andreas HartkopfDepartment of Women's Health, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Peyman HadjiDepartment of Bone Oncology, Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Philipps-University of Marburg-Krankenhaus Nordwest, Steinbacher Hohl 2-26, 60488, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Martin TeufelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy/Psycho-Oncology, Tuebingen University Hospital, Osianderstr. 5, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Florian SchuetzDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christof SohnDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstraße 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Andreas SchneeweissDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sara BruckerDepartment of Women's Health, Research Institute for Women's Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe capture of adequate treatment outcomes and quality of life (QOL) of advanced breast cancer patients in clinical routine represents a great challenge. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are data elements directly reported by patients about experiences with care, including symptoms, functional status, or quality of life. There is growing interest in the medical community for the evaluation and implementation of PROs of adverse events (PRO-AEs). Recent interest in PROs in health care has evolved in the context of patient centeredness. Our primary objective was to identify trials that had implemented PRO-AEs in the breast cancer treatment setting, thereby demonstrating its feasibility. We aimed to identify published studies that used patient reports to assess AEs during and after breast cancer treatment, to identify clinician underreported and modifiable AEs that are important to patients, and to analyze the feasibility and usefulness of PRO instrument implementation in everyday oncological practice with special attention given to electronic-based PRO instruments.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed for studies that used PRO instruments to assess AEs of breast cancer treatment in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. Two authors independently reviewed the search results and decided which studies fully met the predefined inclusion criteria.

resultsThe search yielded 606 publications. The two reviewers found that 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three AEs were identified as important to patients but inadequately reported by health care providers, namely hot flushes, vaginal dryness, and weight gain.

conclusionsPROs and PRO-AEs are the consequence of contemporary concepts of patient-centered medicine and the growing feasibility, utility, and implications of collecting data using modern technology. Furthermore, the willingness of patients to utilize innovative applications for their own health has been increasing in parallel to the enhanced impact of the World Wide Web. Especially, the coverage of the metastatic situation promises numerous findings on the structure and quality of health care, enabling implementation of individually tailored interventions. Remote electronic self-reporting (i.e., home reporting) is feasible and is associated with high compliance levels.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresBreast NeoplasmsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansNeoplasm MetastasisQuality of LifeSelf ReportTreatment OutcomeAdjuvantAdverse eventsBreast cancerMetastaticPatient-reported outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.