Clinical decision support for whole-course management of tumors: A quasi-experimental, pre-post design with a non-equivalent control group
Abstract
Background: Cancer is the number one threat to human health and a disease burden worldwide. However, cancer patients still face many challenges in the diagnosis and treatment process, and therefore, the establishment of an efficient whole-course oncology management model to improve the efficiency of diagnosis and treatment and the quality of patient management has become an urgent issue to be solved. Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the constructed high-precision whole-course management platform for tumors. By using the method of random sampling, cancer patients diagnosed in our hospital from February 2022 to February 2023 were taken as the control group, and those diagnosed in our hospital from March 2023 to March 2024 were taken as the intervention group, with 147 cases in each group. The control group adopted conventional cancer management. The intervention group adopted applet as the carrier to complete the whole-course management of disease screening, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. After discharge, patients were followed up regularly for 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. The diagnosis and treatment efficiency, hospitalization cost, side effects, and prognosis of patients in different groups were observed. Results: The average waiting time from screening to hospitalization, length of hospitalization, and cost were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in those in the control group (P < 0.05). The objective remission rate in the intervention group (45.26%) showed an upward trend compared to the control group (38.52%) (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the side effects such as radiodermatitis, lymphoedema on the affected side, bone marrow suppression, hepatic impairment, and gastrointestinal damage caused during the treatment process in the intervention group were also significantly alleviated (P < 0.05). The medication adherence and rehabilitation adherence of patients in the intervention group were higher than those in the control group at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge (P < 0.05). Compared with the control group, the anxiety and depression were significantly improved in the intervention group 3 and 6 months after discharge (P < 0.05). The quality of life score of the intervention group was significantly better than that of the control group six months after discharge (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The whole-course management model is a high-quality, low-cost, and efficient healthcare service model, which can shorten the average hospital stay and hospitalization costs of cancer patients, improve the efficiency of diagnosis and treatment and the quality of patient management, as well as improve side effects and quality of life. However, the application of this management model in all aspects is still not mature, and indicators and management systems are needed to form a standard database and knowledge base system.
Copyright (c) 2025 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
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(10125): 1023–1075.
2. Grönholm M, Feodoroff M, Antignani G, et al. Patient-Derived Organoids for Precision Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancer Research. 2021; 81(12): 3149–3155.
3. Barat M, Pellat A, Hoeffel C, et al. CT and MRI of abdominal cancers: Current trends and perspectives in the era of radiomics and artificial intelligence. Japanese Journal of Radiology. 2024; 42(3): 246–260.
4. She J, Yang P, Hong Q, Bai C. Lung cancer in China: Challenges and interventions. Chest. 2013; 143(4): 1117–1126.
5. Li C, Lei S, Ding L, et al. Global burden and trends of lung cancer incidence and mortality. Chinese Medical Journal. 2023; 136(13): 1583–1590.
6. Zeng H, Chen W, Zheng R, et al. Changing cancer survival in China during 2003–15: A pooled analysis of 17 population-based cancer registries. The Lancet Global Health. 2018; 6(5): e555–e567.
7. Luo YH, Chiu CH, Scott Kuo CH, et al. Lung Cancer in Republic of China. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021; 16(4): 519–527.
8. Shokrizadeharani L, Batooli Z, Heydarian S, et al. Evaluation of Completeness, Comparability, Validity, and Timeliness in Cancer Registries: A Scoping Review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2023; 305: 160–163.
9. Chen ZH, Lin L, Wu CF, et al. Artificial intelligence for assisting cancer diagnosis and treatment in the era of precision medicine. Cancer Communications. 2021; 41(11): 1100–1115.
10. Yan S, Li J, Wu W. Artificial intelligence in breast cancer: application and future perspectives. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2023; 149(17): 16179–16190.
11. Cooley ME, Mazzola E, Xiong N, et al. Clinical Decision Support for Symptom Management in Lung Cancer Patients: A Group RCT. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2022; 63(4): 572–580.
12. Park J, Rho MJ, Moon HW, et al. Prostate cancer trajectory-map: Clinical decision support system for prognosis management of radical prostatectomy. Prostate International. 2021; 9(1): 25–30.
13. Zeng YH, Hao DJ. Exploration and prospect of the whole course management model of osteoporosis (Chinese). Chinese Medical Journal. 2023; 103(35): 2737–2742.
14. Wu XY, Zhang J. Whole-course information management in gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients (Chinese). Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2020; 23(9): 858–860.
15. Freites-Martinez A, Santana N, Arias-Santiago S, Viera A. Using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE—Version 5.0) to Evaluate the Severity of Adverse Events of Anticancer Therapies. Actas Dermo-sifiliograficas. 2021; 112(1): 90–92.
16. Schabath MB, Cote ML. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Lung Cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2019; 28(10): 1563–1579.
17. Hoffmann-Vold AM, Bendstrup E, Dimitroulas T, et al. Identifying unmet needs in SSc-ILD by semi-qualitative in-depth interviews. Rheumatology. 2021; 60(12): 5601–5609.
18. Neale S, Leach K, Steinfort S, Hitch D. Costs and length of stay associated with early supported discharge for moderate and severe stroke survivors. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2020; 29(8): 104996.
19. Joo JY, Liu MF. Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Case Management in Cancer Care: Systematic Review. Clinical Nursing Research. 2019; 28(8): 968–991.
20. Ramos-Dávila EM, Ruiz-Lozano RE, Gutierrez-Juarez K, et al. Knowledge and compliance with contact lens care: A population-based study at a referral center in Northeast Mexico. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye. 2024; 47(2): 102126.
21. Schirrmacher V. From chemotherapy to biological therapy: A review of novel concepts to reduce the side effects of systemic cancer treatment (Review). International Journal of Oncology. 2019; 54(2): 407–419.
22. Ullrich A, Ascherfeld L, Marx G, et al. Quality of life, psychological burden, needs, and satisfaction during specialized inpatient palliative care in family caregivers of advanced cancer patients. BMC Palliative Care. 2017; 16(1): 31.
23. Barrios CH, Saji S, Harbeck N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized trial of neoadjuvant atezolizumab-chemotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022; 8(1): 108.
