Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42560727›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2026

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring With Alert-Based Interventions in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Maria M Karsten, Pimrapat Gebert, Therese Pross, Anna M Hage, Adam D Dordevic, Susan Stephan, Friedrich Kühn, Lea Doppelbauer, Jens-Uwe Blohmer, Felix Fischer and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

20 authors.

Maria M KarstenDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Pimrapat GebertBerlin Institute of Health at Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Therese ProssDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Anna M HageDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Adam D DordevicDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Susan StephanDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Friedrich KühnDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Theodor-Wenzel-Werk e.V., Berlin, Germany.
Lea DoppelbauerDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jens-Uwe BlohmerDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Felix FischerCenter for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Department for Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias RoseCenter for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Department for Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Anna PöhlmannBerlin Institute of Health at Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Bianca MaterneBerlin Institute of Health at Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Morten Aagaard PetersenPalliative Care Research Unit, Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine GP, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Luis PaulerOnkoZert, Neu-Ulm, Germany.
Julia FerenczOnkoZert, Neu-Ulm, Germany.
Simone WesselmannDeutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein und Viszeralchirurgie e.V., Berlin, Germany.
Clara BreidenbachGerman Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrike GrittnerBerlin Institute of Health at Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christoph KowalskiGerman Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring has shown benefits in advanced cancer, but data specific to metastatic breast cancer (mBC) remain limited. Fatigue is a common, clinically important, and functionally impairing symptom in mBC, making it a patient-centered target for electronic PRO monitoring. Objective: To determine whether digital PRO monitoring with alert-based responses reduces fatigue in patients with mBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 2021 to February 2024, with 12 months of follow-up, at 52 breast cancer centers in Germany and included women aged 18 years or older with mBC who were receiving systemic therapy at any point in the metastatic disease course, had a life expectancy of longer than 3 months, were able to read German, and had smartphone access. Data analysis started in February 2024 and lasted 6 months. Interventions: The intervention group completed weekly PRO questionnaires via a smartphone using validated short forms from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer computerized adaptive testing core item bank. Automated alerts based on predefined PRO deterioration were emailed to trained local nurses or physicians, who contacted patients by telephone within 48 hours. The control group received usual care with quarterly PRO questionnaires and no alerts. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was fatigue at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included fatigue, physical functioning, and quality of life over 12 months. PROs were reported as standardized T scores. Results: Of 2008 patients screened, 924 (46.0%) were randomized, and 909 (45.3%) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 50 years [range, 19-83 years]). Baseline mean (SD) fatigue T scores were 57.6 (9.5) in the intervention group and 60.2 (9.0) in the control group (P < .001), with baseline PROs assessed after randomization but before group-specific follow-up began. At 6 months, adjusted mean fatigue was 54.5 (95% CI, 53.7- 55.4) vs 59.9 (95% CI, 59.0-60.8), yielding a mean difference of -5.4 points (95% CI, -6.6 to -4.1; P < .001), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 3.3 points. At 6 months, physical functioning was higher in the intervention group (mean difference, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.6-5.4), exceeding its MCID (3.2), whereas the between-group difference in quality of life was 0.8 points (95% CI, 0.02-1.5), which was less than the MCID of 2.9. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that digital PRO monitoring was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in fatigue and improved physical functioning. These findings support further evaluation of alert-based PRO monitoring in routine oncology care. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00024015.

Identifiers

PMID42560727
PMCPMC13448833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.