ArticleCancers2026
Revisiting the OGIPRO Trial: Dynamic Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared with EQ-5D-5L in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly valued in oncology for capturing treatment tolerability and quality of life, and they are emerging as important data sources for precision-medicine and AI-driven clinical workflows. While the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire remains a widely used standardized instrument, dynamic electronic PROs (ePROs) collected via mobile applications generate richer, higher-frequency longitudinal data. Their alignment with established PRO measures, however, is not well-understood, limiting their integration into routine care and downstream analytic applications. In the prospective OGIPRO trial (KEK-ZH 2021-D0051), patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported well-being and symptoms via the Medidux ePRO platform alongside weekly EQ-5D-5L assessments. In this retrospective analysis, we used linear mixed-effects modeling to examine associations between: (i) dynamic ePRO well-being and the EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS); (ii) dynamic ePRO symptom grades and EQ-5D-5L domain sums; (iii) ePRO symptom grades and EQ-5D-5L disutility using the EQ-5D-5L value set for Germany. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe analytic dataset comprised 13,699 dynamic ePRO data points (3376 well-being ratings and 10,323 symptom grades across 91 symptom types) from 53 patients, forming high-frequency longitudinal patient trajectories. Of these, 252 and 226 time-aligned observations, respectively, were used for direct comparison with EQ-5D-5L VAS and domain scores.
resultsDynamic ePRO well-being showed strong agreement with EQ-5D-5L VAS (β = 1.061, 95% CI: 1.015-1.107), with low between-patient variability. In contrast, the agreement between aggregated ePRO symptom grades and EQ-5D-5L domain sums was weaker (β = 0.404, 95% CI: 0.307-0.501) and more heterogeneous across patients. The same applied to the agreement between ePRO symptom grades and EQ-5D-5L disutility (β = 0.213; 95% CI: 0.151-0.275). DISCUSSION: Dynamic ePRO well-being aligns closely with EQ-5D-5L VAS scores, supporting its use as a pragmatic substitute in clinical and research settings. Aggregated symptom grades, however, showed limited concordance with EQ-5D-5L domains, indicating the need for more granular analyses on larger datasets.
conclusionsOverall, dynamic ePRO systems provide validated, high-resolution longitudinal patient data and represent a scalable foundation for patient monitoring and data-driven decision support in oncology, including future AI-based precision-medicine applications.
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.