News | Mobile Health Tool Significantly Improves Quality of Life for Young Breast Cancer Survivors
Results from a randomized controlled clinical trial presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), held in the United States from December 9 to 12, 2025, showed that a mobile health (mHealth) intervention using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can provide personalized support to adolescent and young adult breast cancer survivors. It significantly improved overall quality of life and reduced vaginal and upper-extremity symptoms.
Data show that breast cancer incidence among women aged 15 to 39 increased by an average of 0.6% per year from 1975 to 2022. Study presenter Dr. Ann H. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology and chief clinical strategy officer at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said younger breast cancer patients are more likely than older patients to face long-term emotional and medical burdens after diagnosis.
Partridge said current health systems often struggle to meet survivors' continuing and complex support needs after active treatment ends. “Many acute physical symptoms ease after initial treatment, but for young women, the long-term physical, emotional and psychosocial effects of breast cancer on the course of their lives often emerge during survivorship, just as attention from the health system decreases markedly.”
To address this need, the team developed and evaluated a mobile health tool called Youthful, Empowered & Strong (YES). This web and mobile app platform automatically delivers tailored information and support resources based on patients' ePRO questionnaires. For example, when patients report anxiety, pain, menopausal symptoms or concerns about fertility, financial stress or body image, the platform provides relevant educational content and resource links. YES also includes an expressive-writing module and a survivor chat room supervised by the research team, providing peer support for younger patients.
This multicenter randomized controlled study enrolled 360 women aged 15 to 39 who had been diagnosed with stage 0 to 3 breast cancer within the previous three years. At baseline, all participants completed the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) scale, which assesses general quality of life—including emotional state, fatigue, pain, social relationships and sense of purpose—and cancer-specific quality of life, including fear of recurrence, changes in appearance, sexual concerns and effects on health and future life. Participants were then randomly assigned to the YES intervention group (179) or usual-care group (181).
At baseline, the YES group's mean QLACS score was 86.3 for general quality of life and 52.5 for cancer-specific quality of life, compared with 79.7 and 48.9, respectively, in the usual-care group. Higher QLACS scores indicate poorer quality of life.
After six months, the general quality-of-life score fell by an average of 8.7 points in the YES group, compared with 1.6 points in the usual-care group. Cancer-specific quality-of-life scores fell by 7.8 points in the YES group and 3 points with usual care. After adjustment, both differences in change from baseline to six months were statistically significant: the YES group improved by an additional 4.8 points in general quality of life and 3.2 points in cancer-specific quality of life.
Partridge described the result as a paradigm shift. “This is a remote, scalable intervention that is not directly connected to the patient's clinical care team and relies largely on self-management, yet it still produced significant improvements. Effective ePRO interventions have generally been used during active treatment and required substantial clinical staff involvement. This study shows that a low-touch model with limited clinical involvement can also improve outcomes that matter greatly to patients.”
The study also assessed fatigue, depression and other symptoms. At six months, the YES group showed significantly greater improvements than the usual-care group in vaginal and upper-extremity symptoms, with mean differences in change of -0.57 and -0.39, respectively. Fatigue improved somewhat but not significantly. No significant between-group differences were seen in depressive symptoms measured by CES-D or in other symptoms measured by the BCPT scale, including hot flashes, nausea, bladder-control problems, musculoskeletal pain, cognitive concerns and weight changes.
Partridge acknowledged that the intervention had limited effects on some menopausal symptoms, anxiety and depression and requires further refinement. She emphasized, however, that the approach could benefit other hard-to-reach groups, including busy young adults and rural patients who cannot frequently travel to cancer centers for in-person support.
The team also noted several limitations, including participation and use bias; a change in platform vendor during the study; and enrollment of some participants near the COVID-19 lockdown period, which may have affected platform use. All participants were also treated at three academic medical centers and may have had access to more resources and support than patients at other institutions.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The earlier pilot study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, with additional support from Susan G. Komen. Dr. Partridge receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer as an UpToDate author and serves as an American Cancer Society Research Professor.
News | Mobile Health Tool Significantly Improves Quality of Life for Young Breast Cancer Survivors
News | Mobile Health Tool Significantly Improves Quality of Life for Young Breast Cancer Survivors
Results from a randomized controlled clinical trial presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), held in the United States from December 9 to 12, 2025, showed that a mobile health (mHealth) intervention using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can provide personalized support to adolescent and young adult breast cancer survivors. It significantly improved overall quality of life and reduced vaginal and upper-extremity symptoms.
Data show that breast cancer incidence among women aged 15 to 39 increased by an average of 0.6% per year from 1975 to 2022. Study presenter Dr. Ann H. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology and chief clinical strategy officer at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said younger breast cancer patients are more likely than older patients to face long-term emotional and medical burdens after diagnosis.
Partridge said current health systems often struggle to meet survivors' continuing and complex support needs after active treatment ends. “Many acute physical symptoms ease after initial treatment, but for young women, the long-term physical, emotional and psychosocial effects of breast cancer on the course of their lives often emerge during survivorship, just as attention from the health system decreases markedly.”
To address this need, the team developed and evaluated a mobile health tool called Youthful, Empowered & Strong (YES). This web and mobile app platform automatically delivers tailored information and support resources based on patients' ePRO questionnaires. For example, when patients report anxiety, pain, menopausal symptoms or concerns about fertility, financial stress or body image, the platform provides relevant educational content and resource links. YES also includes an expressive-writing module and a survivor chat room supervised by the research team, providing peer support for younger patients.
This multicenter randomized controlled study enrolled 360 women aged 15 to 39 who had been diagnosed with stage 0 to 3 breast cancer within the previous three years. At baseline, all participants completed the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) scale, which assesses general quality of life—including emotional state, fatigue, pain, social relationships and sense of purpose—and cancer-specific quality of life, including fear of recurrence, changes in appearance, sexual concerns and effects on health and future life. Participants were then randomly assigned to the YES intervention group (179) or usual-care group (181).
At baseline, the YES group's mean QLACS score was 86.3 for general quality of life and 52.5 for cancer-specific quality of life, compared with 79.7 and 48.9, respectively, in the usual-care group. Higher QLACS scores indicate poorer quality of life.
After six months, the general quality-of-life score fell by an average of 8.7 points in the YES group, compared with 1.6 points in the usual-care group. Cancer-specific quality-of-life scores fell by 7.8 points in the YES group and 3 points with usual care. After adjustment, both differences in change from baseline to six months were statistically significant: the YES group improved by an additional 4.8 points in general quality of life and 3.2 points in cancer-specific quality of life.
Partridge described the result as a paradigm shift. “This is a remote, scalable intervention that is not directly connected to the patient's clinical care team and relies largely on self-management, yet it still produced significant improvements. Effective ePRO interventions have generally been used during active treatment and required substantial clinical staff involvement. This study shows that a low-touch model with limited clinical involvement can also improve outcomes that matter greatly to patients.”
The study also assessed fatigue, depression and other symptoms. At six months, the YES group showed significantly greater improvements than the usual-care group in vaginal and upper-extremity symptoms, with mean differences in change of -0.57 and -0.39, respectively. Fatigue improved somewhat but not significantly. No significant between-group differences were seen in depressive symptoms measured by CES-D or in other symptoms measured by the BCPT scale, including hot flashes, nausea, bladder-control problems, musculoskeletal pain, cognitive concerns and weight changes.
Partridge acknowledged that the intervention had limited effects on some menopausal symptoms, anxiety and depression and requires further refinement. She emphasized, however, that the approach could benefit other hard-to-reach groups, including busy young adults and rural patients who cannot frequently travel to cancer centers for in-person support.
The team also noted several limitations, including participation and use bias; a change in platform vendor during the study; and enrollment of some participants near the COVID-19 lockdown period, which may have affected platform use. All participants were also treated at three academic medical centers and may have had access to more resources and support than patients at other institutions.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The earlier pilot study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, with additional support from Susan G. Komen. Dr. Partridge receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer as an UpToDate author and serves as an American Cancer Society Research Professor.
Story source:
Collected online