ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025
Integrating Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) into Personalised Follow-up for Patients after Radiotherapy. A Feasibility Study.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cross-sectional retrospective and prospective service evaluation of head and neck cancer patients' swallowing and quality of life concerns: are we doing enough?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- The Current Landscape of Remote Digital Symptom Monitoring for Patients With Lung Cancer: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is an unmet need in patient monitoring between the end of radiotherapy and the first follow-up appointment during which patients may experience severe side effects. Personalised follow-up has the potential to tailor healthcare to individual needs. ePROMs enable remote monitoring and identification of those needing earlier intervention. Purpose: To assess the feasibility of integrating ePROMs into personalised follow-up of patients after radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: Patients with lung or head and neck (HN) cancer were enrolled. ePROMs questionnaires, comprising EQ-5D-5L and 14 lung or 19 HN cancer-specific questions adapted from CTCAE v5.0, were sent to patients at eight timepoints: pre-radiotherapy, mid-radiotherapy, end of radiotherapy, weekly for four weeks post-treatment, and first face-to-face follow-up appointment. Upon completion, automated advice was provided based on responses. Grade 2 or above symptoms were escalated to clinicians. Patient feedback was obtained through structured interviews. Results: Over two months, 19 eligible patients (10 lung, 9 HN) were recruited: 13 received concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and six received radiotherapy alone. ePROMs completion rate was 69.1%, ranging from 47.4% to 89.5% at each timepoint. Three patients reported grade 3 or above symptoms on 5 instances during and after radiotherapy. Fourteen patients participated in the interviews: all 14 reported ePROMs were easy to complete, took an acceptable amount of time, and made them feel better supported. Conclusion: Integrating ePROMs into personalised follow-up is feasible and acceptable to patients. ePROMs provide insights into patients' symptoms during and after radiotherapy, highlighting the need for a tailored approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.