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
. 2025 Jun;44(20):1439-1451.
doi: 10.1038/s41388-025-03424-x. Epub 2025 Apr 30.

A targeted literature review on the impact of tailored interventions on patient outcomes in oncology

Graham Ferrier  1 , Aleksandra Filipovic  2 , Harpreet Wasan  3 , Alessandra di Pietro  4 , Deepali Mittal  5 , Geetanjali Kamath  5 , Saifuddin Kharawala  5 , Faisal Mehmud  6
Affiliations
Review

A targeted literature review on the impact of tailored interventions on patient outcomes in oncology

Graham Ferrier et al. Oncogene. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Non-pharmacological approaches to managing symptoms and side effects of cancer treatments are not always aligned with true needs and characteristics of patients. Without proactive patient-tailored interventions to anticipate, prevent, and manage side effects, risk of patients experiencing treatment interruption or discontinuation increases. A targeted literature review identified published studies evaluating the impact of tailored (customized based on individual patient characteristics) non-pharmacological interventions on patient outcomes in oncology versus routine care (usual clinical practice), enhanced care (support beyond routine care, including additional patient education, psychological support, and medication tracking), or uniform engagement (non-tailored support offered in a uniform manner). Thirty completed clinical studies were included. Approximately 50% of interventions across studies were remote health education/self-management programs, and the remaining provided clinical follow-up for symptom management. All types of tailored intervention led to positive patient outcomes versus routine care. Significant improvements were seen in favor of self-efficacy for self-management (patient's belief in their ability to manage own symptoms and treatment; p < 0.05) and symptom burden (overall as well as specific symptoms including anxiety, nausea, vomiting; all p < 0.05), although there were inconsistent effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and adherence. Compared with enhanced care, most studies showed no consistent improvement for tailored interventions in symptom burden, self-efficacy, HRQoL, HCRU or adherence, although benefits were slightly more common in larger/longer studies. Tailored interventions were not consistently better than uniform engagement in improving outcomes, although the number of studies was limited, with small sample sizes/short follow-ups. In summary, tailored interventions showed positive benefits versus routine or enhanced care (the latter only in larger and longer studies). No consistent benefit was observed compared with uniform engagement. Clinical outcomes were most sensitive to type of intervention. Tools to both enhance and measure the process should be routinely incorporated in clinical trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Graham Ferrier and Faisal Mehmud are employed by Pfizer at the time of review and writing of the manuscript. Alessandra di Pietro is employed by Pfizer at the time of review and writing of the manuscript, and also owns stocks as part of her compensation. Deepali Mittal, Geetanjali Kamath, and Saifuddin Kharawala are employees of Bridge Medical Consulting, commissioned by Pfizer to carry out this literature review. Harpreet Wasan has acted on advisory boards or as an invited speaker or has attended meetings for Servier, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, Bayer, Pfizer, Zymeworks, Merck KGaA, Taiho, Seagen, Exact therapeutics, Takeda (Hutchinson Med), Amgen, Roche/Genentech/ FM, SIRTEX Medical, Erytech Pharma, BMS (Celgene), and BTG; has acted in a consultancy or advisory capacity for NICE/BSI expert Takeda, Bayer, Pierre Fabre, ONCOSIL, Incyte, Celgene, Oaktree life sciences; has served on Global Trials committees for Pfizer (Array); Zymeworks, Boehringer Ingelheim (DMC), SIRTEX, Merck KGaA, ARCAD (Pancreas Academic); and has received research funding from MSD, Merck Serono, Pfizer, and Sirtex. Aleksandra Filipovic has no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Design elements of studies exploring tailored approaches in oncology patient management.
HCRU Healthcare resource utilization. *Patient’s belief in their ability to manage their symptoms and treatment. Routine care: Standard of care as per routine clinical practice, with no additional tailored intervention; Enhanced care: Additional support beyond routine care; including additional information about the disease/treatment/side effects, psychological support from nurses and physicians, or medication tracking; Uniform engagement: Non-tailored support offered in a uniform manner.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Simplified flow diagram illustrating study selection.
*Databases searched were PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar. Bibliographic searches of relevant recent publications were also carried out. **Subjective exclusion was performed by a single reviewer. Studies were selected for inclusion based on the agreed objectives of the current review, with emphasis on those publications that addressed the research questions.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Qualitative summary of the impact of tailored interventions versus comparators on patient outcomes among patients receiving medical treatment for cancer.
HCRU healthcare resource utilization, HRQoL healthcare-related quality of life. Routine care: Standard of care as per routine clinical practice, with no additional tailored intervention; Enhanced care: Additional support beyond routine care; including additional information about the disease/treatment/side effects, psychological support from nurses and physicians, or medication tracking; Uniform engagement: Non-tailored support offered in a uniform manner.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Design recommendations for a potential study evaluating the impact of a tailored intervention on patient outcomes in oncology.
HCRU healthcare resource utilization. *Patient’s belief in their ability to manage their symptoms and treatment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lustberg MB, Kuderer NM, Desai A, Bergerot C, Lyman GH. Mitigating long-term and delayed adverse events associated with cancer treatment: implications for survivorship. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20:527–42. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Di Maio M, Basch E, Denis F, Fallowfield LJ, Ganz PA, Howell D, et al. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:878–92. - PubMed
    1. Chhabra N, Kennedy J. A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity: immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Med Toxicol. 2021;17:411–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shinn EH, Broderick G, Fellman B, Johnson A, Wieland E, Moulder S, et al. Simulating time-dependent patterns of nonadherence by patients with breast cancer to adjuvant oral endocrine therapy. JCO Clin Cancer Inf. 2019;3:1–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Leaning D, Kaur G, Morgans AK, Ghouse R, Mirante O, Chowdhury S. Treatment landscape and burden of disease in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: systematic and structured literature reviews. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1240864. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources