CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCancer survivorship and careTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Systematic review on the technology’s role in supporting lung cancer patients in the treatment journey

Open access
Elkefi, Safa, Wu, Polly, Sabra, Roa, Feiner, Steven, Chen, Lanyi, Hembroff, Guy, Matthews, Alicia K.·2025·npj Digital Medicine
DOI 10.1038/s41746-025-01913-7PMC PMC12343835
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This systematic review examines the role of technology-based interventions in supporting lung cancer patients during their treatment. It identifies (1) the different technologies utilized, (2) their functions and benefits, and (3) the barriers encountered by patients. The authors searched six databases for literature examining the use of technology to support treatment among lung cancer patients. Twenty-three papers were included. We mapped each technology, telehealth platforms, online portals, and mobile apps, to specific treatment phases (pre-treatment, active treatment, post-treatment) and symptom domains (symptom management (N = 17), emotional distress (N = 12), and patient-provider communication (N = 7)). Our results demonstrate that technology can effectively alleviate treatment-related symptoms, reduce emotional burden, and enhance communication. Key barriers included low digital literacy and limited device access. By explicitly linking intervention types to treatment stages and patient needs, this review provides a practical framework for designing and implementing tailored digital support strategies in lung cancer care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-025-01913-7

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous reviews rarely examine whether non-clinical professionals are included in the design, implementation, or evaluation of digital oncology services.

    “Previous reviews provide valuable evidence on specific digital technologies and patient or clinical outcomes, but they rarely examine whether non-clinical professionals, such as managers, administrators, and service coordinators, are included in the design, implementation, or evaluation of digital oncology services.”

    From Digital health technologies in oncology services: A scoping review of clinical implementation, organisational evidence gaps, and policy implications (2026) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes earlier reviews of digital technologies and patient outcomes, supporting the sentence’s first clause. It identifies their gap as a lack of focus on lung cancer patients during active treatment, not a failure to examine whether managers, administrators, or service coordinators participate in designing, implementing, or evaluating services. The Discussion calls for stakeholder involvement but does not establish the claimed gap in previous reviews. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. [1]Zhou, J. et al. Global burden of lung cancer in 2022 and projections to 2050: Incidence and mortality estimates from GLOBOCAN. Cancer Epidemiol. 93, 102693 (2024). 39536404
  2. [6]Polanski, J., Jankowska-Polanska, B., Rosinczuk, J., Chabowski, M. & Szymanska-Chabowska, A. Quality of life of patients with lung cancer. OncoTargets and therapy, 1023-1028 (2016). PMC4778772 27013895
  3. [8]Hong, Y. A., Hossain, M. M. & Chou, W. S. Digital interventions to facilitate patient-provider communication in cancer care: A systematic review. Psychooncology 29, 591–603 (2020). 31834650
  4. [9]Samadbeik, M., Garavand, A., Aslani, N., Sajedimehr, N. & Fatehi, F. Mobile health interventions for cancer patient education: a scoping review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 105214 (2023). 37729837
  5. [10]van Deursen, L. et al. eHealth interventions for Dutch cancer care: systematic review using the triple aim lens. JMIR cancer 8, e37093 (2022). 35699991 PMC9240931
  6. [11]Greer, J. A. et al. Telehealth vs In-Person Early Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: A Multisite Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA (2024). PMC11391365 39259563
  7. [12]LI, M. et al. The Efficacy of Internet-based Intervention on Quality of Life for Patients with Chronic Post-surgical Pain. Iran. J. Public Health 45, 1604–1609 (2016). 28053926 PMC5207101
  8. [14]Schneider, S. M. & Hood, L. E. Virtual Reality: A Distraction Intervention for Chemotherapy. Oncol. Nurs. forum 34, 39–46 (2007). 17562631 PMC2121303
  9. [15]Mkanta, W. N., Chumbler, N. R., Richardson, L. C. & Kobb, R. F. Age-Related Differences in Quality of Life in Cancer Patients: A Pilot Study of a Cancer Care Coordination/Home-Telehealth Program. Cancer Nurs. 30, 434 (2007). 18025915
  10. [16]Hopmans, W. et al. Communicating cancer treatment information using the Web: utilizing the patient’s perspective in website development. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 14, 116 (2014). 25481306 PMC4271466
  11. [17]Schook, R. M. et al. Why Do Patients and Caregivers Seek Answers From the Internet and Online Lung Specialists? A Qualitative Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 16, e2842 (2014). PMC3936275 24496139
  12. [18]Denis, F. et al. Randomized Trial Comparing a Web-Mediated Follow-up With Routine Surveillance in Lung Cancer Patients. JNCI: J. Natl Cancer Inst. 109, djx029 (2017). 28423407
  13. [19]Denis, F. et al. Improving Survival in Patients Treated for a Lung Cancer Using Self-Evaluated Symptoms Reported Through a Web Application. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 464 (2017). 25811297
  14. [20]Groen, W. G. et al. Supporting Lung Cancer Patients With an Interactive Patient Portal: Feasibility Study. JMIR Cancer 3, e7443 (2017). PMC5566630 28790025
  15. [21]Mooney, K. H. et al. Automated home monitoring and management of patient-reported symptoms during chemotherapy: results of the symptom care at home RCT. Cancer Med. 6, 537–546 (2017). 28135050 PMC5345623
  16. [22]Tang, F. W. K. et al. A feasibility study on using tablet personal computers for self-reported symptom assessment in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 24, e12658 (2018). 29642280
  17. [23]Park, S. et al. Mobile Phone App–Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Chemotherapy-Treated Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: Pilot Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 7, e11094 (2019). 30714943 PMC6378551
  18. [25]Mouillet, G. et al. Feasibility of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for cancer patients using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) in daily clinical practice. Qual. Life Res. 30, 3255–3266 (2021). 33387291
  19. [26]Nimgaonkar, V. et al. Impact of telemedicine adoption on accessibility and time to treatment in patients with thoracic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Cancer 21, 1094 (2021). 34635061 PMC8503709
  20. [27]Misplon, S., Marneffe, W., Himpe, U., Hellings, J. & Demedts, I. Evaluation of the implementation of Value-Based Healthcare with a weekly digital follow-up of lung cancer patients in clinical practice. Eur. J. Cancer Care 31, e13653 (2022). 35819130
  21. [28]Charles, C. et al. Delivering adapted physical activity by videoconference to patients with fatigue under immune checkpoint inhibitors: Lessons learned from the PACTIMe-FEAS feasibility study. J. Telemed. Telecare 29, 716–724 (2023). 34137641
  22. [29]Ha, D. M. et al. Telemedicine-based inspiratory muscle training and walking promotion with lung cancer survivors following curative intent therapy: a parallel-group pilot randomized trial. Supportive Care Cancer 31, 546 (2023). PMC10474183 37656252
  23. [30]Mooney, K. et al. Technology-Assisted mHealth Caregiver Support to Manage Cancer Patient Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Pain. Symptom Manag. 66, 33–43 (2023). 36889453
  24. [31]Arriola, E. et al. Feasibility and User Experience of Digital Patient Monitoring for Real-World Patients With Lung or Breast Cancer. Oncologist 29, e561–e569 (2024). 38007400 PMC10994260
  25. [33]Loy, M. H., Prisco, L. & Parikh, C. Implementation of Virtual Integrative Oncology Shared Medical Appointment Series (VIOSMAS) Within Mixed Diagnosis Population. Integr. Cancer Therapies 23, 15347354231223969 (2024). PMC10799580 38243739
  26. [34]Kluetz, P. G., O’Connor, D. J. & Soltys, K. Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. Lancet Oncol. 19, e267–e274 (2018). 29726391
  27. [35]Balitsky, A. K. et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open 7, e2424793 (2024). 39136947 PMC11322847
  28. [36]Yang, L. Y., Manhas, D. S., Howard, A. F. & Olson, R. Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Supportive Care Cancer 26, 41–60 (2018). 28849277
  29. [37]Reck, M. et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1–positive non–small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1823–1833 (2016). 27718847
  30. [38]Solomon, B. J. et al. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 2167–2177 (2014). 25470694
  31. [40]Araghi, M. et al. Recent advances in non-small cell lung cancer targeted therapy; an update review. Cancer Cell Int. 23, 162 (2023). 37568193 PMC10416536
  32. [42]Morrison, E. J. et al. Emotional problems, quality of life, and symptom burden in patients with lung cancer. Clin. lung cancer 18, 497–503 (2017). 28412094 PMC9062944
  33. [43]Li, J. et al. Communication Needs of Cancer Patients and/or Caregivers: A Critical Literature Review. J. Oncol. 2020, 7432849 (2020). 32454826 PMC7229568
  34. [44]ElKefi, S. & Asan, O. How technology impacts communication between cancer patients and their health care providers: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 149, 104430 (2021). 33684711 PMC8131252
  35. [45]Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K. & Pignone, M. P. Decision making and cancer. Am. Psychol. 70, 105–118 (2015). 25730718 PMC4347999
  36. [46]Joseph-Williams, N., Elwyn, G. & Edwards, A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ. counseling 94, 291–309 (2014). 24305642
  37. [47]Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. (Springer publishing company, 1984).
  38. [48]Mooney, A., Beale, N. & Fried-Oken, M. in Seminars in Speech and Language. 257-269 (Thieme Medical Publishers). 29933492
  39. [49]Elkefi, S., Blecker, S. & Bitan, Y. Health Information Technology Supporting Adherence Memory Disorder Patients: A Systematic Literature Review. Appl. Clin. Inform. 15, 085–100 (2024). PMC10830240 38295858
  40. [50]Shiraz, F., Rahtz, E., Bhui, K., Hutchison, I. & Korszun, A. Quality of life, psychological wellbeing and treatment needs of trauma and head and neck cancer patients. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 52, 513–517 (2014). 24787647
  41. [51]Northouse, L. et al. A tailored web-based psychoeducational intervention for cancer patients and their family caregivers. Cancer Nurs. 37, 321–330 (2014). 24945270 PMC4164300
  42. [52]Breen, S. et al. The Patient Remote Intervention and Symptom Management System (PRISMS)–a Telehealth-mediated intervention enabling real-time monitoring of chemotherapy side-effects in patients with haematological malignancies: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 16, 1–17 (2015). 26481873 PMC4617442
  43. [53]Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Singh, R. P. & Suman, R. Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sens Int 2, 100117 (2021). 34806053 PMC8590973
  44. [54]Mooney, K., Whisenant, M. S. & Beck, S. L. Symptom Care at Home: A Comprehensive and Pragmatic PRO System Approach to Improve Cancer Symptom Care. Med Care 57, S66–s72 (2019). 30531525 PMC8087999
  45. [55]Basch, E. et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 557–565 (2016). 26644527 PMC4872028
  46. [56]Walden, A., Garvin, L., Smerek, M. & Johnson, C. User-centered design principles in the development of clinical research tools. Clin. trials 17, 703–711 (2020). 32815381
  47. [57]Pinto, B. M., Frierson, G. M., Rabin, C., Trunzo, J. J. & Marcus, B. H. Home-based physical activity intervention for breast cancer patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 3577–3587 (2005). 15908668
  48. [58]Jeannot, E. et al. Circulating HPV DNA as a marker for early detection of relapse in patients with cervical cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 27, 5869–5877 (2021). 34210686 PMC9401545
  49. [59]Denis, F. & Krakowski, I. How should oncologists choose an electronic patient-reported outcome system for remote monitoring of patients with cancer?. J. Med. Internet Res. 23, e30549 (2021). 34499046 PMC8461535
  50. [60]Ostermann, M., Bagshaw, S. M., Lumlertgul, N. & Wald, R. Indications for and timing of initiation of KRT. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 18, 113–120 (2023). 36100262 PMC10101614
  51. [61]Frosch, Z. A. et al. Trends in patient volume by hospital type and the association of these trends with time to cancer treatment initiation. JAMA Netw. open 4, e2115675 (2021). 34241630 PMC8271360
  52. [62]Hofman, A., Zajdel, N., Klekowski, J. & Chabowski, M. Improving social support to increase QoL in lung cancer patients. Cancer Management and Research, 2319–2327 (2021). PMC7959197 33732024
  53. [64]Alfano, C. M. et al. Roadmap for Connecting Cancer Rehabilitation with Survivorship to improve patient outcomes and clinical efficiency. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabilitation 103, S10–S15 (2024). 38364024
  54. [65]Fareed, N., Swoboda, C. M., Jonnalagadda, P. & Huerta, T. R. Persistent digital divide in health-related internet use among cancer survivors: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2003–2018. J. Cancer Survivorship 15, 87–98 (2021). PMC7360998 32671557
  55. [66]Morris, B. B., Rossi, B. & Fuemmeler, B. The role of digital health technology in rural cancer care delivery: a systematic review. J. Rural Health 38, 493–511 (2022). 34480506 PMC8894502
  56. [68]Yao, R. et al. Inequities in health care services caused by the adoption of digital health technologies: scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 24, e34144 (2022). 35311682 PMC8981004
  57. [69]Göttgens, I. & Oertelt-Prigione, S. The application of human-centered design approaches in health research and innovation: a narrative review of current practices. JMIR mHealth uHealth 9, e28102 (2021). 34874893 PMC8691403
  58. [70]Greer, J. A. et al. Telehealth vs in-person early palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer: a multisite randomized clinical trial. JAMA 332, 1153–1164 (2024). 39259563 PMC11391365
  59. [71]Freeman, J. Q. et al. Assessing the Relationship Between Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Telemedicine Use Among Patients With Breast Cancer and Examining Differential Provisions of Oncology Services Between Telehealth and In-Person Visits: Quantitative Study. JMIR cancer 10, e55438 (2024). 39024570 PMC11294759
  60. [72]Williams, M. T. et al. Compliance with mobile ecological momentary assessment of self-reported health-related behaviors and psychological constructs in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 23, e17023 (2021). 33656451 PMC7970161
  61. [73]Dang, J., King, K. M. & Inzlicht, M. Why Are Self-Report and Behavioral Measures Weakly Correlated?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 267–269 (2020). 32160564 PMC7977810
  62. [74]Simon, B. A. et al. Association between electronic patient symptom reporting with alerts and potentially avoidable urgent care visits after ambulatory cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 156, 740–746 (2021). 34076691 PMC8173461
  63. [75]Dai, W. et al. Patient-reported outcome-based symptom management versus usual care after lung cancer surgery: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 988–996 (2022). 34995100 PMC8937008

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elkefi, S., Wu, P., Sabra, R., Feiner, S., Chen, L., Hembroff, G., & Matthews, A. K.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Michigan Technological University (US)
Corresponding author
Elkefi, Safa
ORCID
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-08-13
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
516-516
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41746-025-01913-7
PMC
PMC12343835
OpenAlex
W4413112041
Cited by
8
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University (VELOCITY 01-2025)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
lung cancer, digital health interventions, telemedicine, mobile health apps, patient portals, symptom management, emotional distress, patient-provider communication, digital literacy, technology adoption barriers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review