ArticleBMC cancer2025
Impact of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) presentation in pancreatic cancer tumor board discussions on cancer outcomes: the INSPIRE intervention.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) primarily affects older adults and has a poor prognosis. Although tools like geriatric assessments and electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) can guide treatment, they are underutilized in clinical practice. This secondary analysis of the INSPIRE pilot intervention, a pilot intervention that assessed the utility of incorporating data on patient preferences and frailty into multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) discussions, evaluated the clinical impact of incorporating patient preferences and frailty data into MDTB discussions.
methodsThe study included patients aged ≥ 60 years with PDAC enrolled in the INSPIRE intervention at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Patients discussed at MDTBs with adequate medical records who did not forgo treatment initially were included. A control group comprised patients who completed preference and frailty surveys but whose ePRO data were not presented at MDTBs. Outcomes analyzed included treatment consistency with preferred National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) regimens based on fitness, unplanned treatment modifications, and healthcare utilization within six months of treatment initiation. Data were extracted from medical records and statistical analysis employed log-rank tests from cumulative incidence functions.
resultsAmong 121 patients (24 intervention, 97 controls), the median age was 70 years. Compared to controls, the intervention group had fewer comorbidities (8% vs. 25% with no comorbidities, V = 0.22), a higher proportion of non-White patients (42% vs. 25%, V = 0.15), more resectable disease (48% vs. 35%, V = 0.14), and higher frailty rates (42% vs. 31%, V = 0.11). Intervention patients showed slightly higher consistency with NCCN preferred regimens based on fitness (63% vs. 60%, V = 0.02), fewer unplanned treatment modifications (54% vs. 68%, V = 0.12), and lower hospital admissions (33% vs. 50%, V = 0.13).
conclusionThe INSPIRE intervention demonstrated promising signals when aligning treatment regimens with patient capabilities and preferences, potentially reducing unplanned treatment modifications and hospital admissions. Larger studies are needed to confirm these exploratory results and assess broader applicability.
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.