Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Oct;28(10):4589-4612.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05539-1. Epub 2020 Jun 12.

Digital health for optimal supportive care in oncology: benefits, limits, and future perspectives

M Aapro  1   2 , P Bossi  3 , A Dasari  4 , L Fallowfield  5 , P Gascón  6 , M Geller  7 , K Jordan  8 , J Kim  9 , K Martin  10 , S Porzig  11
Affiliations
Review

Digital health for optimal supportive care in oncology: benefits, limits, and future perspectives

M Aapro et al. Support Care Cancer. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Digital health provides solutions that capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and allows symptom monitoring and patient management. Digital therapeutics is the provision to patients of evidence-based therapeutic interventions through software applications aimed at prevention, monitoring, management, and treatment of symptoms and diseases or for treatment optimization. The digital health solutions collecting PROs address many unmet needs, including access to care and reassurance, increase in adherence and treatment efficacy, and decrease in hospitalizations. With current developments in oncology including increased availability of oral drugs and reduced availability of healthcare professionals, these solutions offer an innovative approach to optimize healthcare resource utilization.

Design: This scoping review clarifies the role and impact of the digital health solutions in oncology supportive care, with a view of the current segmentation according to their technical features (connection to sensors, PRO collection, remote monitoring, self-management in real time…), and identifies evidence from clinical studies published about their benefits and limitations and drivers and barriers to adoption. A qualitative summary is presented.

Results: Sixty-six studies were identified and included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies supported the use of 38 digital health solutions collecting ePROs and allowing remote monitoring, with benefits to patients regarding symptom reporting and management, reduction in symptom distress, decrease in unplanned hospitalizations and related costs and improved quality of life and survival. Among those 38 solutions 21 provided patient self-management with impactful symptom support, improvement of QoL, usefulness and reassurance. Principal challenges are in developing and implementing digital solutions to suit most patients, while ensuring patient compliance and adaptability for use in different healthcare systems and living environments.

Conclusions: There is growing evidence that digital health collecting ePROs provide benefits to patients related to clinical and health economic endpoints. These digital solutions can be integrated into routine supportive care in oncology practice to provide improved patient-centered care.

Keywords: Digital therapeutics; Integrative oncology; Patient-reported outcomes; Self-management; Symptom monitoring; eHealth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Digital health definitions
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PRISMA statement. PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, RCT randomized controlled trial
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Benefits and limitations of digital solutions in the healthcare system. FDA US Food and Drug Administration, HCP healthcare professional, IT information technology
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Ideal digital health solution
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A, Bray F. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019;144:1941–1953. - PubMed
    1. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018;391:1023–1075. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359–E386. - PubMed
    1. Cook R. Economic and clinical impact of multiple myeloma to managed care. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14:19–25. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jordan K, Aapro M, Kaasa S, Ripamonti CI, Scotté F, Strasser F, Young A, Bruera E, Herrstedt J, Keefe D, Laird B, Walsh D, Douillard JY, Cervantes A. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) position paper on supportive and palliative care. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:36–43. - PubMed

Grants and funding

-