ArticleBMJ oncology2025
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and in clinical practice: report from the XXI national conference of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM).
Article in BMJ oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine for acute pharyngitis: a scoping review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- From economic burden to patient-centered solutions: the evolving landscape of financial toxicity in oncology.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Letter to the editor: "Critical appraisal of the anchor RCT on entecavir, peginterferon Alfa-2b, and GM-CSF combination therapy".Hepatology international · 2026Article
- Response to letters to editor "Next-Step Paradigms for Hepatitis B Functional Cure: Insights from the Anchor Combination Therapy Trial" and "Critical Appraisal of the Anchor RCT on Entecavir, Peginterferon Alfa-2b, and GM-CSF Combination Therapy".Hepatology international · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Quality of Life Predicts First-Cycle Pharmacotherapy Survival in Breast Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Maximizing the impact of real-world evidence on cancer treatment: what do we need to achieve it?Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Review
- A Delphi Study to Identify Priority Indicators for Formulary Selection of Innovative Anticancer Drugs in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- PD-L1-stratified health-related quality of life in solid tumors: pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy-a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Obtaining Patient-Reported Outcome Data via a Home Patient Monitoring App: Development, Implementation, and Validation of Novel Interface Terminology.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- The role of stem cells in precision medicine: next-generation cancer treatment.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered the gold standard for the assessment of subjective symptoms, quality of life (QoL) and patient well-being in both clinical trials and clinical practice. Here, we report key discussions and findings from the 21st National Conference of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology, held in Bologna on 21-22 June 2024, with a focus on the integration and impact of PROs in oncology research and clinical practice. Methods and analysis: Leading national and international experts presented and analysed data regarding the use of PROs in clinical trials and routine oncology care. Topics included the role of electronic PROs (ePROs), digital therapeutics, financial toxicity as a PRO and methodologies for standardising QoL assessment. Insights were drawn from expert presentations, consensus discussions and practical experiences shared during the conference sessions. Results: Experts emphasised that PROs should be included as key endpoints in clinical trials, with timely publication of results and standardised methodologies for analysis and interpretation. The conference highlighted the critical importance of incorporating PROs and QoL measures throughout the cancer care continuum-from screening to survivorship. In clinical practice, PROs improve patient-centred care and communication, particularly when oncologists are trained to interpret QoL data. The use of ePROs was noted as a valuable tool to support digital health interventions. Financial toxicity emerged as a significant PRO, with screening tools recommended to identify and support at-risk patients. Key organisational challenges were identified, including technological barriers, resource constraints and the need for responsive infrastructure to support real-time PRO integration. Conclusion: The implementation of PROs, including ePROs and financial toxicity assessments, is essential for advancing quality cancer care. Standardisation, digital innovation and targeted clinician education are critical to integrating PROs effectively in both research and clinical settings. Addressing infrastructural and technological challenges will be vital for optimising patient outcomes and ensuring optimal care across the cancer journey.
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.