Observational studyJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy.
Observational study in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electronic patient-reported outcome systems and capabilities in cancer care: a systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Real-world implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine oncology practice: a scoping review.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Real-world ePRO use and clinical outcomes using electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving first-line pembrolizumab.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Observational
- Advancing Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2025Review
- Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs for monitoring symptoms among patients treated with immunotherapy: a scoping review.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Learning about and living with toxicity: a qualitative study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors for melanoma or lung cancer and their caregivers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUtilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics.
methodsPatients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS).
resultsData were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0-182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0-184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months.
conclusionImprovements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.