Introduction
Methods
Results
Review of scientific literature
Author, year | App function (name of app or study) | Trial type | Patients included | Patient collective | Conclusion | Commercially available in app stores |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buergy et al. 2019 [20] | Monitoring side effects in follow-up (EORTC questionnaires; MyOnCare, TeleGraPH study) | Single arm | 29 | Geriatric cancer patientsb | App-based follow-up might be possible in highly selected elderly patients with modest compliance rates (individual compliance rate: 58.3%) | Yes (iOS and Android) |
Cox et al. 2011 [11] | Monitoring symptoms (daily and weekly scales, overnight submission to HCP; HealthHUB, CareHub) | Single arm | 21 | Patients receiving palliative RT to lung cancer | HCP acknowledged potential benefits of incorporating computerized patient assessment from both a patient and an HCP perspective | Yes (iOS and Android) |
Di et al. 2017 [15] | Tracking side effects/QoL, re-examination reminder, knowledge base, and online expert (interactive) during follow-up (6 months) | Prospective, two arms | 65/67 | Nasopharyngeal cancer receiving RCT | App can improve exercise compliance, reduce adverse reactions and complications (lower incidence of mucositis, xerostomia, and mouth-opening difficulties) | No |
El Shafie et al. 2018 [21] | ePROs (general performance, QoL [EORTC QLQ C30], symptoms, need to consult a physician [interaction possible] during RT; OPTIMISE-1) | Single arm | 50 | Patients with thoracic and pelvic tumors receiving curative RT | Study protocol only | No |
Falchook et al. 2015 [31] | Monitoring patient reported outcomes daily during treatment (fatigue, pain, nausea, anxiety), possible interaction with HCP | Single arm | 22 | Head and neck cancer patients receiving RT (curative) | High compliance and high satisfaction | No |
Friedman et al. 2016 [38] | Real-time symptom management during RT with alert system (reminder to enter pain level four times a day; Prime Health MD, Dunwoody, USA) | Single arm | 24 | Head and neck cancer with definitive RCT (curative) | Feasible app for monitoring pain and severe symptoms in head and neck cancer patients during RT | Nod |
Gani et al. 2019a [33] | ePROs during and after RT | Single arm | 23 | Patients receiving RT/RCT (curative) | High acceptance (80% weekly feedback), potential to optimize patient care | No |
Hauth et al. 2019 [34] | Scoring side effects (CTCAE) and QoL during and after RT (weekly; PROMetheus) | Single arm | 21 | Mixed cohort of patients receiving RT/RCT (curative) | Successful implementation of an ePRO system, high patient acceptance | No |
Hecht et al. 2022a [63] | ePROs during follow-up (twice weekly, 1–10 scale; Patienta, developed by Alcalta, Erlangen, Germany) | Single arm | 25 | Ambulant oncologic patientsb | Early detection of possible deterioration of health status possible | No |
Kessel et al. 2018 [22] | QoL (EORTC QLQ C 30) during and after treatment | Single arm | 81 | Mixed cohort at radiation oncology department | Usability test showed good results regarding attractiveness, operability, and understandability. High overall acceptance | No |
Maguire et al. 2015 [35] | Symptom monitoring during RT with correspondence to HCP handset (ASyMS) | Single arm | 16 | Patients with lung cancer receiving RT (curative) | Feasible and acceptable in clinical practice | No |
Moller et al. 2022 [32] | ePRO (QoL) during and 4 weeks after RT (MyHospital, developed by MedWare, Odense, Denmark) | Single arm | 40 | Prostate and cervical cancer receiving pelvic RT (curative) | Feasible, high adherence to weekly self-reporting, time spent acceptable | No |
Assessment of patient-reported outcome (symptoms of pneumonitis, QoL, other adverse effects) to detect a radiation pneumonitis during and after RT (PARALUC) | Prospective, single arm | 57 | Lung cancer patients receiving RT/RCT (curative)c | Patient satisfaction with score and app (prototype) was very high. The developed score to detect pneumonitis showed excellent diagnostic accuracy | No | |
Sprave et al. 2020 [18] | Monitoring and support app during RT (daily questions for symptoms, QoL, need for personal physician appointment; APCOT study) | Randomized, two arms | 100 | Head and neck cancer patients receiving RT/RCT (curative) | Study protocol only | No |
Sundberg et al. 2015 [68] Langius-Eklöf et al. 2017 [69] | Reporting and managing symptoms during and 3 months after RT (real-time submission to HCP; Interaktor) | Non-randomized two arms | 64/66 17/28 | Prostate cancer patients undergoing RT | Less symptom burden at the end of treatment in emotional functioning, insomnia and urinary-related symptoms with the app. Increase of patients’ sense of security and their reflections on their own wellbeing | No |
Teckie et al. 2021 [37] | ePROs in follow-up 8 weeks after RT (biweekly questionnaires) (LogPAL developed by Northwell Health Inc, Lake Success, USA) | Single arm | 38 | Head and neck cancer patients receiving RT/RCT (curative) | Feasible, regularly used, and accepted (73.2% questionnaires completed) | Yes (iOS) |
Underwood et al. 2022 [39] | Assessment of patient-related outcome after RT (“say all your symptoms” and symptom tracking CTCAE; mPROS app) | Single arm | 25 | Patients receiving RT to head and neck, breast and pelvic areas | Usable and feasible tailored assessment for patients to report symptomatic toxicities | No |
Wöller et al. 2022a [46] | Follow-up app (Myoncare app, Oncare) | Single arm | 38 | Prostate and breast cancer receiving radiotherapy (curative) | For breast cancer patients: Interest in new communication with HCP (preliminary results) | Yes (iOS and Andoid) |
Wong et al. 2018 [24] | Oral mucositis pain assessment (visual analog scale 1–10, reminder 4 ×/day) and accelerometer (activity monitor) to track physical activity | Single arm | Not stated | Head and neck cancer patients receiving RT (at least 50 Gy; curative) | Study protocol only | No |
Zini et al. 2019 [36] | Reporting clinical parameters, quality of life, and symptoms during and after RT | Single arm | 10 | Head and neck cancer patients receiving RCT | Feasible and acceptable by both patients and oncologists | No |
Author, year | App function (name of app or study) | Trial type | Patients included | Patient collective | Conclusion | Commercially available in app stores |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Birkhoff et al. 2018 [29] | Multipurpose tool: appointment calendar, medication tracker, symptom tracker durin (Health Storylines) | Single arm | 32 | Adult patients receiving RT | Usable and acceptable, more customization is needed to increase usability | No |
Boeke et al. 2022 [23] | Activity tracker during RT and 4 weeks afterwards (GIROfit) | Single arm | 23 | Patients receiving RT/RCT (curative) | High acceptance. Observed changes in physical activities correlated with patient-reported side effects and QoL in some patients | No |
Da Cruz et al. 2021 [30] | Multipurpose tool: reminder/scheduling/symptom tracking/information app during RT (AMOR Mama) | Descriptive (pre-study) | – | Breast cancer patients undergoing RT (planned) | App prototype was considered adequate after been having improved by suggestions of HCP. No patients involved so far | No |
Fridstedt et al. 2021 [16] | Digital information tool before, during, and after RT (guided tour, maps, telephone numbers, animated films; Digi-Do) | Randomized two-arms | 80/80 | Breast cancer patients receiving RT (curative) | Study protocol only | Yes (iOS) |
Kauppinen et al. 2019a [28] | Daily scheduling app (HMS, Health Care Mobile Solution) | Single arm | 30 | Patients receiving RT | Effective tool, high usability | No |
Ladbury et al. 2021 [26] | Assistance during RT (educational resource; Oncpatient) | Single arm | 20 | Patients undergoing RT (curative) | Study protocol only | No |
Liao et al. 2022 [17] | Multipurpose tool (knowledge database, interactive online consultation, data upload module), follow-up up to 6 months after RCT | Randomized two-arms | 57/57 | Nasopharyngeal cancer patients undergoing RCT (curative) | Significantly reduction of side effects with app | No |
Activity monitoring and pain/QoL (sensor-equipped bracelet and app) 12 weeks in follow-up | Single arm | 30 | Palliative cancer patientsb | Remote monitoring of health care status in palliative cancer patients is feasible, mostly positive feedback (bracelet was worn in 53%, smartphone was used in 85% of the study) | No | |
Reminder app for skin care (4 times daily; RAREST-02) | Prospective, two arms | 25/28 | Head and neck cancer patients receiving RCT (curative) | The reminder app was associated with significantly less grade ≥ 2 dermatitis in patients receiving RCT and nonsignificantly less grade ≥ 2 dermatitis and mucositis (grade ≥ 2 and ≥ 3) in the entire cohort | No | |
Starmer et al. 2017 [25] | Support adherence to swallowing therapy during RT (exercise videos, educational content, reminder, interaction with HCP possible; Vibrent) | Single arm | 36 | Head and neck cancer patients undergoing RT (curative) | App is feasibly integrated into patient care practices. It may assist patients in adhering to treatment recommendations and facilitate communication | No |
Stephenson et al. 2018 [27] | Teaching platform, tour of institute, interactive games (Proton U) | Descriptive | 0 | Pediatric cancer patients receiving proton therapy (curative) | Successful implementation of mobile app for pediatric cancer patients | Yes (iOS) |
Yang et al. 2021 [47] | Coaching app that interactively provides online advice about food intake, exercise, and weight changes during and after RCT, additional walk step count (Noom Inc) | Single arm | 38 | Esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant RCT | App can help nutritional self-care with less decrease in prognostic nutritional index but no prevention of excessive muscle loss | Yes (iOS and Android) |
Author, year | App function (name of app or study) | Trial type | Patients included | Patient collective | Conclusion | Commercially available in app stores |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ataei et al. 2020 [40] | Radiotherapy-related calculations (Android only) | Descriptive | – | – | Facilitates radiotherapy physicists’ tasks | No |
Gerard et al. 2022 [44] | Resource for self-directed learning in radiation oncology (audio lessons, quizzes, and cases; Rad Onc handbook) | Descriptive | – | – | Easy to use, relevant, knowledge has increased, enhanced learning in 80% of participants | No |
Jermoumi et al. 2015 [41] | Modeling RT with in situ dose painting (RAID App, Matlab) | Descriptive | – | – | Potential for subsequent development to guide dose-painting treatment planning using high‑z nanoparticles for different LDR brachytherapy sources and low-keV x‑rays | No |
Schiefer et al. 2015 [42] | Measurement of isocenter path characteristics of the gantry rotation with an app | Descriptive | – | – | Mechanical isocenter of the gantry and its path can be defined very rapidly, precisely, and cost effectively | No |
Tsang et al. 2015 [45] | Dose calculation (RBApp) | Descriptive | – | – | Users were satisfied. Tool is used for both clinical decision making and educational purposes | Yes (Android) |
Wu et al. 2017 [43] | Semiautomatic segmentation of glioma on mobile devices for doctors | Descriptive | 129 | Glioma patients | Comparison with other segmentation methods demonstrates both efficiency and stability of the proposed approach | No |