Answer questions and earn CME/CNEPatient‐reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires assess topics a patient can report about his or her own health. This includes symptoms (eg, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, pain, or frequent urination), physical functioning (eg, difficulty climbing stairs or difficulty fastening buttons), and mental health (eg, anxiety, fear, or worry). Electronic PRO (ePRO) systems are used in oncology clinical care because of 1) their ability to enhance clinical care by flagging important symptoms and saving clinicians time; 2) the availability of standardized methods for creating and implementing PROs in clinics; and 3) the existence of user‐friendly platforms for patient self‐reporting like tablet computers and automated telephone surveys. Many ePRO systems can provide actionable links to clinical care such as summary reports in a patient's electronic medical record and real‐time e‐mail alerts to providers when patients report acute needs. This review presents 5 examples of ePRO systems currently in use in oncology practice. These systems support multiple clinical activities, including assessment of symptoms and toxicities related to chemotherapy and radiation, postoperative surveillance, and symptom management during palliative care and hospice. Patient self‐reporting is possible both at clinical visits and between visits over the Internet or by telephone. The implementation of an ePRO system requires significant resources and expertise, as well as user training. ePRO systems enable regular monitoring of patient symptoms, function, and needs, and can enhance the efficiency and quality of care as well as communication with patients. CA Cancer J Clin 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.

Purpose: The use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) systems is increasing in cancer clinical care settings. This review comprehensively identifies existing PRO systems and explores how systems differ in the administration of PRO assessments, the integration of information into the clinic workflow and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the reporting of PRO information.Methods: Electronic PRO (e-PRO) systems were identified through a semistructured review of published studies, gray literature, and expert identification. System developers were contacted to provide detailed e-PRO system characteristics and clinical implementation information using a structured review form.Results: A total of 33 unique systems implemented in cancer clinical practice were identified. Of these, 81% provided detailed information about system characteristics. Two system classifications were established: treatment-centered systems designed for patient monitoring during active cancer treatment (n ϭ 8) and patient-centered systems following patients across treatment and survivorship periods (n ϭ 19). There was little consensus on administration, integration, or result reporting between these system types. Patient-centered systems were more likely to provide userfriendly features such as at-home assessments, integration into larger electronic system networks (eg, EHRs), and more robust score reporting options. Well-established systems were more likely to have features that increased assessment flexibility (eg, location, automated reminders) and better clinical integration. Conclusion:The number of e-PRO systems has increased.Systems can be programmed to have numerous features that facilitate integration of PRO assessment and routine monitoring into clinical care. Important barriers to system usability and widespread adoption include assessment flexibility, clinical integration, and high-quality data collection and reporting.