Cost-effectiveness of symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment

Cost-effectiveness of a patient-reported outcome-based remote monitoring and alert intervention for early detection of critical recovery after joint replacement: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

While the effectiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as an intervention to impact patient pathways has been established for cancer care, it is unknown for other indications. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a PROM-based monitoring and alert intervention for early detection of critical recovery paths following hip and knee replacement.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is based on a multicentre randomised controlled trial encompassing 3,697 patients with hip replacement and 3,110 patients with knee replacement enrolled from 2019 to 2020 in 9 German hospitals. The analysis was conducted with a subset of 546 hip and 492 knee replacement cases with longitudinal cost data from 24 statutory health insurances. Patients were randomised 1:1 to a PROM-based remote monitoring and alert intervention or to a standard care group. All patients were assessed at 12-months post-surgery via digitally collected PROMs. Patients within the intervention group were additionally assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-surgery to be contacted in case of critical recovery paths. For the effect evaluation, a PROM-based composite measure (PRO-CM) was developed, combining changes across various PROMs in a single index ranging from 0 to 100. The PRO-CM included 6 PROMs focused on quality of life and various aspects of physical and mental health. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The intervention group showed incremental outcomes of 2.54 units PRO-CM (95% confidence interval (CI) [0.93, 4.14]; p = 0.002) for patients with hip and 0.87 (95% CI [-0.94, 2.67]; p = 0.347) for patients with knee replacement. Within the 12-months post-surgery period the intervention group had less costs of 376.43€ (95% CI [-639.74, -113.12]; p = 0.005) in patients with hip, and 375.50€ (95% CI [-767.40, 16.39]; p = 0.060) in patients with knee replacement, revealing a dominant ICER for both procedures. However, it remains unclear which step of the multistage intervention contributes most to the positive effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention significantly improved patient outcomes at lower costs in patients with hip replacements when compared with standard care. Further it showed a nonsignificant cost reduction in knee replacement patients. This reinforces the notion that PROMs can be utilised as a cost-effective instrument for remote monitoring in standard care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: German Register for Clinical Studies (DRKS) under DRKS00019916.

Selecting Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Side Effects for Real-Time Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care: A Modified Delphi Study

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring may support the safe delivery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). There is no consensus on which side effects should be monitored in routine care. We aimed to develop a prioritized list of ICI side effects to include in ePRO systems and compare this to existing ICI-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

We conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey. Participants were patients (or their carers) who had received/were receiving ICI or managing health care professionals (HCPs). Round 1 (R1) side effects were generated from a literature review and existing PROMs. In R1, participants rated the importance of 63 ICI side effects in an ePRO system on a five-point Likert scale. In round 2 (R2), participants ranked the 10 most important side effects from 36 side effects. Content mapping of the prioritized list against existing PROMs was conducted.

RESULTS

In R1, 47 patients, nine carers, and 58 HCPs responded. Twenty-eight side effects were rated important (I)/very important (VI) by >75% of participants and included in R2. Ten were rated I/VI by <50% of participants and excluded. Twenty-five were rated I/VI by 50%-75% of participants and discussed at an HCP roundtable to determine inclusion in R2. In R2, 39 patients, 11 carers, and 42 HCPs ranked seizures, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, and rash as the most important side effects for monitoring. Content mapping showed significant differences between the prioritized list and existing PROMs.

CONCLUSION

We developed a consumer- and clinician-driven prioritized list of 36 ICI side effects to include in future ePRO systems. This process highlights the importance of broad stakeholder engagement in side-effect selection and rigorously identifying clinically important side effects to ensure content validity and clinical utility.

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into the Care of People With Advanced Cancer-A Practical Guide

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being increasingly integrated into routine clinical practice to enhance individual patient care. This has been driven by recognition of the benefits of PROs in enhancing symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival, and reductions in acute health care utilization. These benefits are reflected in the emergence of value-based health care initiatives incorporating PRO symptom monitoring such as the Enhancing Oncology Model in the United States. However, implementing PROs can be challenging and it can be difficult to know where to begin to select appropriate PROs, and effectively display and appropriately interpret PRO data. This manuscript summarizes an educational session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, which provided practical guidance to clinicians seeking to incorporate PROs into the care of people with advanced cancer. We focus on why it is important to collect PROs in routine care from a patient's perspective, how to select PROs for symptom monitoring (including using static patient-reported outcome measures and newer item libraries), and highlight key pearls and pitfalls in the display and interpretation of PROs. We highlight the breadth of existing resources available to guide clinicians in PRO implementation.

Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects.

RESULTS

Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool.

RESULTS

Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.

Symptom burden in patients with idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease and its impact on daily life: an international patient and caregiver survey

Background

Idiopathic Multicentric Castleman Disease (iMCD) is a rare inflammatory lymphoproliferative disorder with heterogenous clinical presentations. The symptomatology in iMCD patients remains poorly understood. The aim of this study was to identify the type, frequency and severity of iMCD-related symptoms and the impact of these on the daily lives of iMCD patients and informal-caregivers.

Methods

We conducted two bespoke 45-question online surveys for iMCD patients and informal-caregivers of patients recruited from the US, UK, Australia and Canada between April 14 and November 8, 2021. Descriptive data was collected, and a Likert scale was used to quantify the impact of symptoms on various aspects of daily life. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to determine associations between age, gender, employment status and symptom burden with aspects of daily life.

Findings

Eligible respondents included 51 iMCD patients and 11 informal-caregivers. Patients reported up to 27 unique symptoms, the mean number of symptoms experienced by a patient was 6.7 (range 0-22 symptoms). Most symptoms had a moderate to severe impact on patients' daily lives, with 'pain/discomfort', 'ability to travel', and 'sexual functioning' being the most impacted. iMCD patient characteristics such as being 40 years or older, female, and either disabled or unemployed was significantly associated with adverse impact on several aspects of daily life. Among caregivers, the aspects of daily life that were disproportionately affected was their own social life and freedom, emotional wellbeing, travel/relocation, and work.

Interpretation

iMCD patients have widely varied and unappreciated symptomatology. High symptom burden adversely impacts several aspects of patient daily lives as well as their caregivers.

Funding

Funding was provided by EUSA Pharma.

The Feasibility, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicities: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in routine cancer care will increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Systems are needed to support remote monitoring for irAEs. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring systems can help monitor and manage symptoms and side effects. We assessed the content and features of ePRO symptom monitoring systems for irAEs, and their feasibility, acceptability, and impact on patient outcomes and health care utilization.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review questions were extracted and synthesized in tables.

RESULTS

Seven papers describing five ePRO systems were included. All systems collected PROs between clinic visits. Two of five used validated symptom questionnaires, 3/5 provided prompts to complete questionnaires, 4/5 provided reminders to self-report, and 3/5 provided clinician alerts for severe/worsening side effects. Four of five provided coverage of ≥26/30 irAEs in the ASCO irAE guideline. Feasibility and acceptability were demonstrated with consent rates of 54%-100%, 17%-27% of questionnaires generating alerts, and adherence rates of 74%-75%. One paper showed a reduction in grade 3-4 irAEs, treatment discontinuation, clinic visit duration, and emergency department presentations, while another showed no difference in these outcomes or the rate of steroid use.

CONCLUSION

There is preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO symptom monitoring for irAEs. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact on ICI-specific outcomes, such as the frequency of grade 3-4 irAEs and duration of immunosuppression. Suggestions for the content and features of future ePRO systems for irAEs are provided.

Improving Outcome-Driven Care in Multiple Myeloma Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Qualitative Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Multiple myeloma is an incurable disease with a considerable illness and treatment burden, which negatively impacts patients' quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of multiple myeloma care in five Dutch hospitals, related to the three objectives of outcome-driven care, which are defined as (1) providing information for shared decision making in individual patient care, (2) supporting the learning capacity of healthcare professionals and healthcare institutions through benchmarking and (3) developing outcome-driven and patient-centred contracting by health insurers.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews about experiences with patient-reported outcomes were conducted with patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders 2 years after implementation. Data were thematically analysed, and emerging topics were clustered around the three objectives of outcome-driven care.

RESULTS

A total of 46 interviews were held (15 with patients, 16 with professionals and 15 with other stakeholders) that showed patients with multiple myeloma were willing to complete patient-reported outcomes, although integration of patient-reported outcomes in shared decision making fell short in clinical practice. Aggregated patient-reported outcomes were considered important for improving quality of care; however, data collection and data exchange are hindered by privacy legislation, limitations of IT systems and a lack of data standards. Patient-reported outcomes were expected to contribute to cost-effective multiple myeloma treatment, yet outcome-driven reimbursement is still lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome-driven multiple myeloma care using patient-reported outcomes is feasible, provided that (1) patient-reported outcomes and shared decision making are integrated into clinical practice, (2) legal and technical obstacles hindering data collection are removed and (3) health insurers adjust their reimbursement plans to facilitate outcome-driven care.

Electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) Measures in Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma (STS) Receiving Palliative Treatment

The PazoQoL prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study was designed to continuously assess global health related quality of life (HRQoL) during treatment with pazopanib or physician-preferred chemotherapy over a 9-week period. The questionnaires were completed by the patients at home with great reliability during this time period. Continuous electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) enabled early detection of the onset of deterioration and timely initiation of countermeasures. The Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) showed high interindividual variability and decline over a 9-week period, whereas the Time Trade-off (TTO) proved to be an efficient method for assessing individual benefit from cancer therapy. In our cohort, the TTO clearly demonstrated that the prolongation of life and the side effect profile of continued therapy were not as satisfactory as expected by patients when starting a new therapy. Although the study had to be stopped early due to the pandemic, our findings could translate into clinical practice without much effort and outside of a trial.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Their Clinical Applications in Dermatology

With more disease- and symptom-specific measures available and research pointing to increased usefulness, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be routinely used in clinical care. PROMs increase efficiency in healthcare, improve the clinician-patient relationship, and increase patient satisfaction with their care. PROMs can be administered before, during, and after clinic visits using paper-and-pencil, mobile phones, tablets, and computers. Herein, we combine available literature with expert views to discuss overcoming barriers and helping dermatologists incorporate PROMs into routine patient-centered care. We believe dermatology patients will benefit from broader PROM implementation and routine clinical use. However, a few major barriers exist: (1) cost to implement the technology, (2) selecting the right PROMs for each disease, and (3) helping both patients and clinicians understand how PROMs add to and complement their current clinical experience. We provide recommendations to assist dermatologists when considering whether to implement PROMs in their practices.

An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology

Purpose

Despite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.

Methods

The guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).

Results

Selection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.

Conclusion

E-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the “data actionable” within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00478-3.

Cancer patients’ perceptions regarding their symptoms and functioning are important as they can differ from a professional assessment. Patients’ perceptions and self-assessment can be collected via electronic devices. Thus, the clinical staff can see a graphic overview of individual disease-related burden. Despite studies indicating the benefit of this assessment for care and symptom management, it is not integrated into routine care so far. The aim of our study was, to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic patient-reported assessment in a radio-oncology inpatient clinic under “real-life” clinical conditions instead of study conditions. Patients could complete an electronic assessment at the beginning/end and during their treatment. Results indicate that electronic self-assessment can identify more symptoms than the assessment of physicians and nurses. Patients completing a self-assessment are more likely to receive supportive measures. The majority of 80–90% of patients were willing to complete a self-assessment. On average 5–6 min were needed to explain or support the completion. While the intervention was feasible and acceptable for patients, motivating clinical staff using its results was most challenging. The importance of technical support became evident.

Additional Value of Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Simple Summary

The additional value of patient-reported symptom monitoring in routine cancer is still under discussion. With this in mind, we have reviewed recent evidence on the benefits of this strategy. The evidence examined illustrates that bringing systematic patient feedback into the oncology consultation provides objective advantages over usual care, such as better symptom control, early detection of tumor recurrence, and extended chemotherapy use. Such care improvements ultimately entail an outstanding survival benefit for advanced cancer patients, an increase in their global quality of life, and eventually, medical cost savings. Monitoring patient-reported symptoms might also have other implications in clinical practice, such as promoting patient disease awareness or enhancing patient–physician communication and relationships. Notwithstanding these advantages, there are still logistical barriers that prevent its widespread implementation—especially in the electronic modality. In addition, the real-world effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy are yet to be proven in different settings.

Abstract

Background: To describe the benefit of patient-reported symptom monitoring on clinical, other patient-reported, and economic outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review using Medline/PubMed, limited to original articles published between 2011 and 2021 in English and Spanish, and focused on the benefit of patient-reported symptom monitoring on cancer patients. Results: We identified 16 reports that deal with the benefit of patient-reported symptom monitoring (collected mostly electronically) on different outcomes. Five studies showed that patient-reported symptom surveillance led to significantly improved survival compared with usual care—mainly through better symptom control, early detection of tumor recurrence, and extended chemotherapy use. Additionally, three evaluations demonstrated an improvement in Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) associated with this monitoring strategy, specifically by reducing symptom severity. Additionally, six studies observed that this monitoring approach prevented unplanned emergency room visits and hospital readmissions, leading to a substantial decrease in healthcare usage. Conclusions: There is consistent evidence across the studies that patient-reported symptom monitoring might entail a substantial survival benefit for cancer patients, better HRQoL, and a considerable decrease in healthcare usage. Nonetheless, more studies should be conducted to demonstrate their effectiveness in addition to their cost-effectiveness in clinical practice.

A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases

An application of telemedicine of growing interest and relevance is the use of personal computers and mobile devices to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are self-reports of patients' health status without interpretation by anyone else. The tools developed to assess PROs are known as patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). The technological innovations that have led to an increased ownership of electronic devices have also facilitated the development of electronic PROMs (ePROMs). ePROMs are a conduit for telemedicine in the care of patients with chronic diseases. Various studies have demonstrated that the use of ePROMs in routine clinical practice is both acceptable and feasible with patients increasingly expressing a preference for an electronic mode of administration. There is increasing evidence that the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePROMs) could have significant impacts on outcomes valued by patients, healthcare providers and researchers. Whilst the development and implementation of these systems may be initially costly and resource-intensive, patient preferences and existing evidence to support their implementation suggests the need for continued research prioritisation in this area. This narrative review summarises and discusses evidence of the impact of ePROMs on clinical parameters and outcomes relevant to chronic diseases. We also explore recently published literature regarding issues that may influence the robust implementation of ePROMs for routine clinical practice.

Feasibility randomised controlled trial of remote symptom chemotherapy toxicity monitoring using the Canadian adapted Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS-Can): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Technology is emerging as a solution to develop home-based, proactive 'real-time' symptom monitoring and management in cancer care. The Advanced Symptom Monitoring and Management System-Canada (ASyMS-Can) is a remote phone-based symptom management system that enables real-time remote monitoring of systemic chemotherapy toxicities.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is an open-label, prospective, mixed-method, Phase II, 2-arm parallel group assignment (ASyMS-Can vs usual care) feasibility study in patients with cancer receiving systemic (neo-adjuvant or adjuvant) chemotherapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. A total of 114 patients will be recruited in oncology clinics prior to initiation of chemotherapy. Patients in both arms will complete a demographic and a set of questionnaires at enrolment, mid and end of treatment. Patients in intervention arm will be provided with an encrypted, secure, preprogrammed ASyMS phone for symptom reporting daily for the first 14 days of each chemotherapy treatment cycle up to sixth cycle (16 weeks). Feasibility metrics (recruitment, retention and protocol adherence) and outcomes to assess impact of ASyMS-Can include symptom severity, emotional distress, quality of life and acceptability to patients and clinicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received ethical and institutional approvals from the University Health Network. Dissemination will include presentations at national/international conferences, and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03335189.

AMTRA: a multicentered experience of a web-based monitoring and tailored toxicity management system for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Technology-based interventions are increasingly being introduced in routine clinical cancer care. There is a need for reliable systems to monitor treatment-related toxicity in a standardized manner. Such electronic tools bridge the gap in providing quality home-based monitoring.

METHODS

From July 2017 to December 2017, we performed a multicentered, non-randomized prospective cohort analysis with patients who were receiving routine chemotherapy for various solid tumors, using a web-based patient-reported toxicity registration, management, and intervention system called AMTRA (ambulatory Monitoring of cancer Therapy using an interactive Application) linked to the homecare nursing organization Remedus®. Twelve common toxicities plus pain and two biometrics could be registered daily or more frequently as required. These were processed centrally to generate tailored advice for lesser symptoms or a phone call from a dedicated nurse in case of severe or prolonged toxicity. A compliance tool to monitor oral therapies was incorporated in the system.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-eight patients (92%) were enrolled, with 31,514 registrations analyzed. One hundred eight patients reported severe toxicity (> 1461 registrations), resulting in 102 clinical interventions ranging from self-management advice, supplemental consultations to hospitalizations. Compliance to oral chemotherapy was high using AMTRA with a median of 98.7% (95 confidence interval (CI) [93.5-100.0%]). Seventy-nine percent of patients stated that the availability of AMTRA self-reports was useful in communication with the care provider, while 75% felt more in control while managing their treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of an interactive PRO-system in routine symptom management of cancer patients allowed standardized documentation of toxicities and recorded a high compliance with oral treatment. It allows for rapid interaction for toxicities and cancer-related symptoms experienced at home.

The increasing value of eHealth in the delivery of patient-centred cancer care

The increasing use of eHealth has ushered in a new era of patient-centred cancer care that moves beyond the traditional in-person care model to real-time, dynamic, and technology-assisted assessments and interventions. eHealth has the potential to better the delivery of cancer care through improved patient-provider communication, enhanced symptom and toxicity assessment and management, and optimised patient engagement across the cancer care continuum. In this Review, we provide a brief, narrative appraisal of the peer reviewed literature over the past 10 years related to the uses of patient-centred eHealth to improve cancer care delivery. These uses include the addressal of symptom management, health-related quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes across cancer care. In addition, we discuss the challenges of, and opportunities for, accessibility, scalability, and implementation of these technologies, important areas for further development, and future research directions.