Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs for monitoring symptoms among patients treated with immunotherapy: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring toxicities among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is relatively recent. This scoping review aims to guide decision making in the development of PROMs programs for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to January 2024. Data on PROM programs for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (eg, PROMs used, frequency) were extracted. Two authors with established interrater reliability screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. A narrative synthesis identified patterns in the data. RESULTS: A total of 22 articles described 16 unique multicomponent, electronic PROM programs for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, mainly developed for remote monitoring of toxicities between appointments. Patients typically completed 18-26 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) weekly, with high adherence and satisfaction. Commonly monitored symptoms were diarrhea, fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, nausea, decreased appetite, rash, joint pain, pain, and mood. Other features of PROMs programs included clinician alerts, with some programs only flagging symptoms that had an impact on treatment. Some programs also or only sent alerts to patients to contact their clinicians and gave access to symptom management information. In terms of efficacy, the only consistent finding was an increase in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this scoping review provide some indication as to which components of a PROM program are promising. However, as the evidence base for using PROMs among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors is growing, many questions remain, including which symptoms to monitor, using which PROM, and at what frequency. More trials are needed to answer these questions and to determine how best to implement PROMs among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".