Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34065805›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Measuring Quality of Life Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Real-World Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: The Need for a Standardized Approach.

Marloes E Clarijs, Jacob Thurell, Friedrich Kühn, Carin A Uyl-de Groot, Elham Hedayati, Maria M Karsten, Agnes Jager, Linetta B Koppert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Exploring the lived experiences of women with metastatic breast cancer and their HRQoL questionnaire preferences: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Marloes E ClarijsAcademic Breast Cancer Center, Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacob ThurellDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.
Friedrich KühnDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6587-505X
Carin A Uyl-de GrootDepartment of Health Technology Assessment, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Elham HedayatiDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1352-4332
Maria M KarstenDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Agnes JagerAcademic Breast Cancer Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Linetta B KoppertAcademic Breast Cancer Center, Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients are almost always treated to minimize the symptom burden, and to prolong life without a curative intent. Although the prognosis of MBC patients has improved in recent years, the median survival after diagnosis is still only 3 years. Therefore, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should play a leading role in making treatment decisions. Heterogeneity in questionnaires used to evaluate the HRQoL in MBC patients complicates the interpretability and comparability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) globally. In this review, we aimed to provide an overview of PRO instruments used in real-world MBC patients and to discuss important issues in measuring HRQoL. Routinely collecting symptom information using PROs could enhance treatment evaluation and shared decision-making. Standardizing these measures might help to improve the implementation of PROs, and facilitates collecting and sharing data to establish valid comparisons in research. This is a prerequisite to learn about how they could impact the clinical care pathway. In addition, the prognostic value of intensified PRO collection throughout therapy on survival and disease progression is promising. Future perspectives in the field of PROs and MBC are described.

Indexed as

metastatic breast cancerpatient reported outcomesquality of life

Identifiers

PMID34065805
PMCPMC8151772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.