ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2027
Discordance between clinician- and patient-reported outcomes during radiotherapy for brain metastases: the prospective NeuroPRO study.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2027. 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) remain a central component of side effect assessment in radiotherapy, while patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being integrated into standard practice to better capture the subjective symptom burden experienced by patients. Agreement between CRO and PRO has not been prospectively studied in patients undergoing radiotherapy for brain metastases. Methods: NeuroPRO was a prospective longitudinal cohort study enrolling patients receiving radiotherapy for brain metastases. CROs were assessed using predefined CTCAE (version 5.0) items, while PROs were collected using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BN20 at baseline, end of treatment, and first follow-up. Upon completion of radiotherapy, decision regret was evaluated additionally using the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale. Chance-corrected agreement between CRO and PRO was quantified for each item using Gwet's second-order agreement coefficient (AC2). Longitudinal differences were additionally explored using two-way ANOVA and agreement was further characterized using Bland-Altman analyses with calculation of limits of agreement (LoA). Results: Sixty-three patients were included, completing 278 questionnaires and yielding 4448 matched CRO-PRO item comparisons. Across 27 of 32 shared symptoms (84%), PRO scores were higher than CRO scores, indicating Conclusion: Sole clinician assessment systematically underestimates symptom burden in patients undergoing radiotherapy for brain metastases, particularly within psychological domains and somatic symptoms not readily attributable to radiotherapy. These findings reveal a structural perception gap and support the routine integration of PROs into interdisciplinary neuro-oncologic care to enhance symptom recognition and promote patient-centered management (DRKS00031480).
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.