Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties

Purpose This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancer patients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT). Methods A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Con...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Supportive care in cancer 2021-05, Vol.29 (5), p.2265-2278
Hauptverfasser: Behroozian, Tara, Milton, Lauren T., Shear, Neil H., McKenzie, Erin, Razvi, Yasmeen, Karam, Irene, Pon, Kucy, Lam, Henry, Lam, Emily, Chow, Edward
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2278
container_issue 5
container_start_page 2265
container_title Supportive care in cancer
container_volume 29
creator Behroozian, Tara
Milton, Lauren T.
Shear, Neil H.
McKenzie, Erin
Razvi, Yasmeen
Karam, Irene
Pon, Kucy
Lam, Henry
Lam, Emily
Chow, Edward
description Purpose This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancer patients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT). Methods A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases on 14 February 2020. English articles that evaluated an instrument’s use in assessing RD among breast cancer patients receiving external beam RT were included. Studies that reported on the reliability, validity, or concordance of items between assessment tools were included in accordance with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 13 skin toxicity assessment tools discussed. Tools that assessed clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) mostly reported moderate correlation with biophysical parameter (BP) measurements and low correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Traditionally used CRO scoring tools demonstrated moderate inter-rater reliability between clinicians, likely due to the subjective nature of items on the grading scales. Most commonly used tools were found to be either insufficient or indeterminate in their measurement properties. Conclusions Current standardized tools that measure CROs are subject to clinician interpretation and fail to represent the patient experience. Tools designed to assess PROs are promising in their assessments of the impact of RT on patient quality of life; however, most PRO tools are generic to all skin conditions and require further validation for use in breast cancer. Among tools that measure CROs, PROs, and BPs, there is insufficient evidence on their measurement properties to establish a “gold standard” for the assessment of RD in breast cancer patients.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00520-020-05889-w
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2503197557</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A656117125</galeid><sourcerecordid>A656117125</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8c86e69d0809a1428bd33acfa831606c43d1279151ebc68fdafb763c82eace93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV1rHCEUhqU0NNskf6AXRej1pH6Mo9O7JfQLAoWQe3H0THDZGbcep0v-fZ1u2lAoRUTR5zlHeQl5w9k1Z0y_R8aUYA1bpzKmb44vyIa3UjZayv4l2bC-5U0rlTonrxF3jHGtlXhFzqUUTEmhNmR350J0JaaZBshT3ZWI1CEC4gRzoSWlPdIFIdA40yGDw0K9mz3kD3RL8RELrJqnGX5EONI00qlCS4Zf_iGnA-QSAS_J2ej2CFdP6wW5__Tx_uZLc_vt89eb7W3j21aUxnjTQdcHZljveCvMEKR0fnRG8o51vpWBC91zxWHwnRmDGwfdSW8EOA-9vCDvTmVr5-8LYLG7tOS5drRCMcl7rZR-ph7cHmycx1Sy81NEb7ed6jjXXKhKXf-DqiPAFH2aYYz1_C9BnASfE2KG0R5ynFx-tJzZNTR7Cs2yda6h2WOV3j69eBkmCH-U3ylVQJ4ArFfzA-TnL_2n7E-dl6Lo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2503197557</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Behroozian, Tara ; Milton, Lauren T. ; Shear, Neil H. ; McKenzie, Erin ; Razvi, Yasmeen ; Karam, Irene ; Pon, Kucy ; Lam, Henry ; Lam, Emily ; Chow, Edward</creator><creatorcontrib>Behroozian, Tara ; Milton, Lauren T. ; Shear, Neil H. ; McKenzie, Erin ; Razvi, Yasmeen ; Karam, Irene ; Pon, Kucy ; Lam, Henry ; Lam, Emily ; Chow, Edward</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancer patients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT). Methods A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases on 14 February 2020. English articles that evaluated an instrument’s use in assessing RD among breast cancer patients receiving external beam RT were included. Studies that reported on the reliability, validity, or concordance of items between assessment tools were included in accordance with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 13 skin toxicity assessment tools discussed. Tools that assessed clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) mostly reported moderate correlation with biophysical parameter (BP) measurements and low correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Traditionally used CRO scoring tools demonstrated moderate inter-rater reliability between clinicians, likely due to the subjective nature of items on the grading scales. Most commonly used tools were found to be either insufficient or indeterminate in their measurement properties. Conclusions Current standardized tools that measure CROs are subject to clinician interpretation and fail to represent the patient experience. Tools designed to assess PROs are promising in their assessments of the impact of RT on patient quality of life; however, most PRO tools are generic to all skin conditions and require further validation for use in breast cancer. Among tools that measure CROs, PROs, and BPs, there is insufficient evidence on their measurement properties to establish a “gold standard” for the assessment of RD in breast cancer patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0941-4355</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-7339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05889-w</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33205325</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - complications ; Cancer ; Cancer therapies ; Care and treatment ; Dermatitis ; Female ; Humans ; Inflammation ; Measurement ; Measuring instruments ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Nursing ; Nursing Research ; Oncology ; Oncology, Experimental ; Pain Medicine ; Patients ; Quality of life ; Quality standards ; Radiation therapy ; Radiodermatitis - etiology ; Radiodermatitis - physiopathology ; Radiotherapy ; Rehabilitation Medicine ; Reproducibility of Results ; Review Article ; Side effects ; Skin ; Systematic review ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Supportive care in cancer, 2021-05, Vol.29 (5), p.2265-2278</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8c86e69d0809a1428bd33acfa831606c43d1279151ebc68fdafb763c82eace93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8c86e69d0809a1428bd33acfa831606c43d1279151ebc68fdafb763c82eace93</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9808-5257</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00520-020-05889-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00520-020-05889-w$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33205325$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Behroozian, Tara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milton, Lauren T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shear, Neil H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenzie, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Razvi, Yasmeen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karam, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pon, Kucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lam, Henry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lam, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chow, Edward</creatorcontrib><title>Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties</title><title>Supportive care in cancer</title><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><description>Purpose This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancer patients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT). Methods A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases on 14 February 2020. English articles that evaluated an instrument’s use in assessing RD among breast cancer patients receiving external beam RT were included. Studies that reported on the reliability, validity, or concordance of items between assessment tools were included in accordance with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 13 skin toxicity assessment tools discussed. Tools that assessed clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) mostly reported moderate correlation with biophysical parameter (BP) measurements and low correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Traditionally used CRO scoring tools demonstrated moderate inter-rater reliability between clinicians, likely due to the subjective nature of items on the grading scales. Most commonly used tools were found to be either insufficient or indeterminate in their measurement properties. Conclusions Current standardized tools that measure CROs are subject to clinician interpretation and fail to represent the patient experience. Tools designed to assess PROs are promising in their assessments of the impact of RT on patient quality of life; however, most PRO tools are generic to all skin conditions and require further validation for use in breast cancer. Among tools that measure CROs, PROs, and BPs, there is insufficient evidence on their measurement properties to establish a “gold standard” for the assessment of RD in breast cancer patients.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - complications</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Dermatitis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inflammation</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Measuring instruments</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing Research</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Oncology, Experimental</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Quality standards</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Radiodermatitis - etiology</subject><subject>Radiodermatitis - physiopathology</subject><subject>Radiotherapy</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Side effects</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0941-4355</issn><issn>1433-7339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kV1rHCEUhqU0NNskf6AXRej1pH6Mo9O7JfQLAoWQe3H0THDZGbcep0v-fZ1u2lAoRUTR5zlHeQl5w9k1Z0y_R8aUYA1bpzKmb44vyIa3UjZayv4l2bC-5U0rlTonrxF3jHGtlXhFzqUUTEmhNmR350J0JaaZBshT3ZWI1CEC4gRzoSWlPdIFIdA40yGDw0K9mz3kD3RL8RELrJqnGX5EONI00qlCS4Zf_iGnA-QSAS_J2ej2CFdP6wW5__Tx_uZLc_vt89eb7W3j21aUxnjTQdcHZljveCvMEKR0fnRG8o51vpWBC91zxWHwnRmDGwfdSW8EOA-9vCDvTmVr5-8LYLG7tOS5drRCMcl7rZR-ph7cHmycx1Sy81NEb7ed6jjXXKhKXf-DqiPAFH2aYYz1_C9BnASfE2KG0R5ynFx-tJzZNTR7Cs2yda6h2WOV3j69eBkmCH-U3ylVQJ4ArFfzA-TnL_2n7E-dl6Lo</recordid><startdate>20210501</startdate><enddate>20210501</enddate><creator>Behroozian, Tara</creator><creator>Milton, Lauren T.</creator><creator>Shear, Neil H.</creator><creator>McKenzie, Erin</creator><creator>Razvi, Yasmeen</creator><creator>Karam, Irene</creator><creator>Pon, Kucy</creator><creator>Lam, Henry</creator><creator>Lam, Emily</creator><creator>Chow, Edward</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9808-5257</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210501</creationdate><title>Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties</title><author>Behroozian, Tara ; Milton, Lauren T. ; Shear, Neil H. ; McKenzie, Erin ; Razvi, Yasmeen ; Karam, Irene ; Pon, Kucy ; Lam, Henry ; Lam, Emily ; Chow, Edward</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8c86e69d0809a1428bd33acfa831606c43d1279151ebc68fdafb763c82eace93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - complications</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Dermatitis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inflammation</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Measuring instruments</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing Research</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Oncology, Experimental</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Quality standards</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Radiodermatitis - etiology</topic><topic>Radiodermatitis - physiopathology</topic><topic>Radiotherapy</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Medicine</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Side effects</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Behroozian, Tara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milton, Lauren T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shear, Neil H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenzie, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Razvi, Yasmeen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karam, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pon, Kucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lam, Henry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lam, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chow, Edward</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Behroozian, Tara</au><au>Milton, Lauren T.</au><au>Shear, Neil H.</au><au>McKenzie, Erin</au><au>Razvi, Yasmeen</au><au>Karam, Irene</au><au>Pon, Kucy</au><au>Lam, Henry</au><au>Lam, Emily</au><au>Chow, Edward</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties</atitle><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle><stitle>Support Care Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><date>2021-05-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>2265</spage><epage>2278</epage><pages>2265-2278</pages><issn>0941-4355</issn><eissn>1433-7339</eissn><abstract>Purpose This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancer patients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT). Methods A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases on 14 February 2020. English articles that evaluated an instrument’s use in assessing RD among breast cancer patients receiving external beam RT were included. Studies that reported on the reliability, validity, or concordance of items between assessment tools were included in accordance with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 13 skin toxicity assessment tools discussed. Tools that assessed clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) mostly reported moderate correlation with biophysical parameter (BP) measurements and low correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Traditionally used CRO scoring tools demonstrated moderate inter-rater reliability between clinicians, likely due to the subjective nature of items on the grading scales. Most commonly used tools were found to be either insufficient or indeterminate in their measurement properties. Conclusions Current standardized tools that measure CROs are subject to clinician interpretation and fail to represent the patient experience. Tools designed to assess PROs are promising in their assessments of the impact of RT on patient quality of life; however, most PRO tools are generic to all skin conditions and require further validation for use in breast cancer. Among tools that measure CROs, PROs, and BPs, there is insufficient evidence on their measurement properties to establish a “gold standard” for the assessment of RD in breast cancer patients.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>33205325</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00520-020-05889-w</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9808-5257</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0941-4355
ispartof Supportive care in cancer, 2021-05, Vol.29 (5), p.2265-2278
issn 0941-4355
1433-7339
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2503197557
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals
subjects Breast cancer
Breast Neoplasms - complications
Cancer
Cancer therapies
Care and treatment
Dermatitis
Female
Humans
Inflammation
Measurement
Measuring instruments
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Nursing
Nursing Research
Oncology
Oncology, Experimental
Pain Medicine
Patients
Quality of life
Quality standards
Radiation therapy
Radiodermatitis - etiology
Radiodermatitis - physiopathology
Radiotherapy
Rehabilitation Medicine
Reproducibility of Results
Review Article
Side effects
Skin
Systematic review
Validity
title Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T21%3A12%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Radiation%20dermatitis%20assessment%20tools%20used%20in%20breast%20cancer:%20A%20systematic%20review%20of%20measurement%20properties&rft.jtitle=Supportive%20care%20in%20cancer&rft.au=Behroozian,%20Tara&rft.date=2021-05-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=2265&rft.epage=2278&rft.pages=2265-2278&rft.issn=0941-4355&rft.eissn=1433-7339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00520-020-05889-w&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA656117125%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2503197557&rft_id=info:pmid/33205325&rft_galeid=A656117125&rfr_iscdi=true