Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40263189›Full record

Observational studyQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025

Evaluating an electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring system in patients with prostate cancer in routine clinical care: a prospective observational study.

Samuel M Vorbach, Francesco Sparano, Stefanie Kreissl, David Riedl, Manuel P Sarcletti, Angela Ginestet, Bernhard Holzner, Ute Ganswindt, Jens Lehmann

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How do you handle post-radiotherapy follow-up care? Results of a national pattern-of-care study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  2. Balancing ideals and realities: health care professionals' perspectives of and attitudes toward digital patient-centered cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
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

9 authors.

Samuel M VorbachDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, AT-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Francesco SparanoData Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Haematologic Diseases (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.
Stefanie KreisslOrdensklinikum Linz Elisabethinen, Linz, Austria.
David RiedlDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Manuel P SarclettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, AT-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Angela GinestetDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, AT-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Bernhard HolznerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Ute GanswindtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, AT-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Jens LehmannDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. jens.lehmann@i-med.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4670-7517

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system for patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer in routine clinical practice.

methodsA prospective observational study was conducted at the Medical University of Innsbruck among patients receiving RT for primary or recurrent prostate cancer. The ePRO system was designed to capture patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life throughout treatment and follow-up, aiming to standardize symptom monitoring and improve continuity of care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, during treatment, and in follow-up with feasibility defined as ≥ 75% of patients completing at least 75% of scheduled assessments. Patients' acceptability was evaluated at baseline and at treatment end using self-developed questionnaires. Healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perception of clinical utility of the system was measured with a self-developed questionnaire.

resultsForty patients participated in the study with a median age of 71 years. The ePRO system was feasible, with an average completion rate of 87%, exceeding the feasibility threshold. Patient acceptability was high, with 98% (39/40) expressing willingness to use it regularly. HCPs' feedback was also positive, with all HCPs (100%, 8/8) reporting usefulness of the system in clinical care and 83% reporting that the system helped them in the clinical assessment of their patients.

conclusionThe ePRO monitoring system was feasible and well-accepted among both patients and HCPs, demonstrating potential for continued use in routine clinical care. Further efforts are needed to optimize clinical integration and address barriers to ensure equitable access.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overFeasibility StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerElectronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)Patient reported outcome measuresRadiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID40263189
PMCPMC12182459

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.