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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Supportive care in cancer 2021-05, Vol.29 (5), p.2265-2278 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |