Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34314814›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2021

Development and Pilot Implementation of a Remote Monitoring System for Acute Toxicity Using Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer.

Kaitlyn Lapen, Christopher Sabol, Amy L Tin, Kathleen Lynch, Alyse Kassa, Xiaolin Mabli, John Ford, Elaine Cha, Michael B Bernstein, Lior Z Braunstein and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kaitlyn LapenDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Christopher SabolDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Amy L TinDepartments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Kathleen LynchDepartments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Alyse KassaDepartments of Health Informatics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Xiaolin MabliDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
John FordDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Elaine ChaDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Michael B BernsteinDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Lior Z BraunsteinDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Oren CahlonDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Bobby M DalyDepartments of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Kiri SandlerDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Susan A McCloskeyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Andrew J VickersDepartments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Atif J KhanDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Erin F GillespieDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: efgillespie@ucsd.edu.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Leveraging implementation science to accelerate adoption of shorter-course radiation for breast and prostate cancerK08CA252640 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GILLESPIE, ERIN FAYE · 2020 to 2025
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA252640NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to develop and study the implementation of a remote system for toxicity assessment and management of acute side effects of breast radiation using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A response-adapted Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events-based assessment for breast radiation toxicity was administered weekly during and for 8 weeks after radiation from June 2019 to July 2020. The care team received alerts when "severe" symptoms were reported by patients, who were then contacted. Treatment, clinic, and sociodemographic characteristics were abstracted from patient records. A subsample of patients and care team members was qualitatively interviewed at follow-up.

resultsOverall, 5787 assessments were sent to 678 patients, of whom 489 (72%) completed 2607 assessments (45%). Moderate or greater toxicity was reported by 419 responders (86%; 95% CI, 82%-89%). Clinician alerts for severe toxicity were generated for 264 assessments among 139 unique patients, of which 83% occurred posttreatment. The proportion of surveys that prompted an alert was significantly higher after treatment (219 [13%]) than during treatment (45 [5%]) (P < .001). Survey completion rates in the posttreatment period were higher among patients undergoing partial breast irradiation than postmastectomy radiation (incidence rate ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81) (P < .001) despite these patients experiencing less severe toxicity. Interviews (15) found that patients had a positive experience with ePROs, although many thought the primary purpose was for research rather than symptom management.

conclusionsWith the majority of toxicity occurring after breast radiation has ended, remote symptom monitoring with ePROs appears to fill a gap in clinical practice, particularly for patients undergoing shorter courses of radiation. It is important to properly onboard patients and explain that the purpose of ePROs is to aid clinical care. Further research is needed to determine whether the costs associated with ePROs can be offset by reducing routine clinic visits and whether this approach is acceptable and appropriate.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsArrhythmias, CardiacElectronicsFemaleHumansMastectomyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34314814
PMCPMC8530913
OpenAlexW3186273121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.