Targeted vs systematic robot‐assisted transperineal magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy
Objective To evaluate the performance of transperineal robot‐assisted (RA) targeted (TB) and systematic (SB) prostate biopsy in primary and repeat biopsy settings. Patients and Methods Patients underwent RA biopsy between 2014 and 2016. Before RA‐TB, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BJU international 2018-05, Vol.121 (5), p.791-798 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 798 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 791 |
| container_title | BJU international |
| container_volume | 121 |
| creator | Mischinger, Johannes Kaufmann, Sascha Russo, Giorgio I. Harland, Niklas Rausch, Steffen Amend, Bastian Scharpf, Marcus Loewe, Lorenz Todenhoefer, Tilman Notohamiprodjo, Mike Nikolaou, Konstantin Stenzl, Arnulf Bedke, Jens Kruck, Stephan |
| description | Objective
To evaluate the performance of transperineal robot‐assisted (RA) targeted (TB) and systematic (SB) prostate biopsy in primary and repeat biopsy settings.
Patients and Methods
Patients underwent RA biopsy between 2014 and 2016. Before RA‐TB, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was performed. Prostate lesions were scored (Prostate Imaging, Reporting and Data System, version 2) and used for RA‐TB planning. In addition, RA‐SB was performed. Available, whole‐gland pathology was analysed.
Results
In all, 130 patients were biopsy naive and 72 had had a previous negative transrectal ultrasonography‐guided biopsy. In total, 202 patients had suspicious mpMRI lesions. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found in 85% of all prostate cancer cases (n = 123). Total and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates for RA‐TB vs RA‐SB were not significantly different at 77% vs 84% and 80% vs 82%, respectively. RA‐TB demonstrated a better sampling performance compared to RA‐SB (26.4% vs 13.9%; P < 0.001).
Conclusion
Transperineal RA‐TB and ‐SB showed similar clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates in primary and repeat biopsy settings. However, RA‐TB offered a 50% reduction in biopsy cores. Omitting RA‐SB is associated with a significant risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/bju.14089 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1974014613</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1974014613</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-22bab30754fa1aab9486c637a7741d6015433b619c4ae4949aef1ba99e58f1823</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kT1v2zAQhokiRZOmHfoHAgFZ2sEJKVEfHBsj_UKALjbQjTjKJ5eGTKo8KoW2LNnzG_tLSttJhgK9hcfjw5e8exl7J_iFSHFpNuOFkLxRL9iJkJWcScF_HD3lXFXH7DXRhvNUqMpX7DhXuRCqyE_Y_QLCGiOuslvKaKKIW4i2zYI3Pv65ewAiS7vjGMDRgME6hD7bwtrhnkPyDlyLmU0169bpzh4N2MYEjn3aJcSvAww_p6wbyXqXDcFThIiZsX6g6Q172UFP-PZxPWXLT9eL-ZfZzffPX-cfb2Zt0TRqlucGTMHrUnYgAIySTdVWRQ11LcWq4qKURWEqoVoJKJVUgJ0woBSWTSeavDhl7w-66f1fI1LUW0st9j049CNpoWq5G5IoEnr-D7rxY3DpdzrnuSorXtc76sOBalNDqedODyENIkxacL3zRidv9N6bxJ49Ko5mi6tn8smMBFwegN-2x-n_Svrq2_Ig-RdTgZ3M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2029560773</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Targeted vs systematic robot‐assisted transperineal magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Mischinger, Johannes ; Kaufmann, Sascha ; Russo, Giorgio I. ; Harland, Niklas ; Rausch, Steffen ; Amend, Bastian ; Scharpf, Marcus ; Loewe, Lorenz ; Todenhoefer, Tilman ; Notohamiprodjo, Mike ; Nikolaou, Konstantin ; Stenzl, Arnulf ; Bedke, Jens ; Kruck, Stephan</creator><creatorcontrib>Mischinger, Johannes ; Kaufmann, Sascha ; Russo, Giorgio I. ; Harland, Niklas ; Rausch, Steffen ; Amend, Bastian ; Scharpf, Marcus ; Loewe, Lorenz ; Todenhoefer, Tilman ; Notohamiprodjo, Mike ; Nikolaou, Konstantin ; Stenzl, Arnulf ; Bedke, Jens ; Kruck, Stephan</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To evaluate the performance of transperineal robot‐assisted (RA) targeted (TB) and systematic (SB) prostate biopsy in primary and repeat biopsy settings.
Patients and Methods
Patients underwent RA biopsy between 2014 and 2016. Before RA‐TB, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was performed. Prostate lesions were scored (Prostate Imaging, Reporting and Data System, version 2) and used for RA‐TB planning. In addition, RA‐SB was performed. Available, whole‐gland pathology was analysed.
Results
In all, 130 patients were biopsy naive and 72 had had a previous negative transrectal ultrasonography‐guided biopsy. In total, 202 patients had suspicious mpMRI lesions. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found in 85% of all prostate cancer cases (n = 123). Total and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates for RA‐TB vs RA‐SB were not significantly different at 77% vs 84% and 80% vs 82%, respectively. RA‐TB demonstrated a better sampling performance compared to RA‐SB (26.4% vs 13.9%; P < 0.001).
Conclusion
Transperineal RA‐TB and ‐SB showed similar clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates in primary and repeat biopsy settings. However, RA‐TB offered a 50% reduction in biopsy cores. Omitting RA‐SB is associated with a significant risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-4096</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-410X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bju.14089</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29211932</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Biopsy ; Early Detection of Cancer - instrumentation ; Humans ; Image-Guided Biopsy ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional ; Male ; Middle Aged ; mpMRI‐TRUS fusion ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; PCSM ; Performance evaluation ; Perineum - diagnostic imaging ; Prostate - diagnostic imaging ; Prostate - pathology ; Prostate cancer ; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System ; ProstateCancer ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Rectum - diagnostic imaging ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; robot‐assisted transperineal prostate biopsy ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; targeted biopsy ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography, Interventional ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>BJU international, 2018-05, Vol.121 (5), p.791-798</ispartof><rights>2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>BJUI © 2018 BJU International</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-22bab30754fa1aab9486c637a7741d6015433b619c4ae4949aef1ba99e58f1823</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-22bab30754fa1aab9486c637a7741d6015433b619c4ae4949aef1ba99e58f1823</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4687-7353 ; 0000-0002-8514-3371</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fbju.14089$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fbju.14089$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29211932$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mischinger, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaufmann, Sascha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Giorgio I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harland, Niklas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rausch, Steffen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amend, Bastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scharpf, Marcus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loewe, Lorenz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Todenhoefer, Tilman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Notohamiprodjo, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikolaou, Konstantin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stenzl, Arnulf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bedke, Jens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruck, Stephan</creatorcontrib><title>Targeted vs systematic robot‐assisted transperineal magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy</title><title>BJU international</title><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><description>Objective
To evaluate the performance of transperineal robot‐assisted (RA) targeted (TB) and systematic (SB) prostate biopsy in primary and repeat biopsy settings.
Patients and Methods
Patients underwent RA biopsy between 2014 and 2016. Before RA‐TB, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was performed. Prostate lesions were scored (Prostate Imaging, Reporting and Data System, version 2) and used for RA‐TB planning. In addition, RA‐SB was performed. Available, whole‐gland pathology was analysed.
Results
In all, 130 patients were biopsy naive and 72 had had a previous negative transrectal ultrasonography‐guided biopsy. In total, 202 patients had suspicious mpMRI lesions. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found in 85% of all prostate cancer cases (n = 123). Total and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates for RA‐TB vs RA‐SB were not significantly different at 77% vs 84% and 80% vs 82%, respectively. RA‐TB demonstrated a better sampling performance compared to RA‐SB (26.4% vs 13.9%; P < 0.001).
Conclusion
Transperineal RA‐TB and ‐SB showed similar clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates in primary and repeat biopsy settings. However, RA‐TB offered a 50% reduction in biopsy cores. Omitting RA‐SB is associated with a significant risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - instrumentation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image-Guided Biopsy</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>mpMRI‐TRUS fusion</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>PCSM</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Perineum - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostate - pathology</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System</subject><subject>ProstateCancer</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Rectum - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>robot‐assisted transperineal prostate biopsy</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>targeted biopsy</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Interventional</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1464-4096</issn><issn>1464-410X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kT1v2zAQhokiRZOmHfoHAgFZ2sEJKVEfHBsj_UKALjbQjTjKJ5eGTKo8KoW2LNnzG_tLSttJhgK9hcfjw5e8exl7J_iFSHFpNuOFkLxRL9iJkJWcScF_HD3lXFXH7DXRhvNUqMpX7DhXuRCqyE_Y_QLCGiOuslvKaKKIW4i2zYI3Pv65ewAiS7vjGMDRgME6hD7bwtrhnkPyDlyLmU0169bpzh4N2MYEjn3aJcSvAww_p6wbyXqXDcFThIiZsX6g6Q172UFP-PZxPWXLT9eL-ZfZzffPX-cfb2Zt0TRqlucGTMHrUnYgAIySTdVWRQ11LcWq4qKURWEqoVoJKJVUgJ0woBSWTSeavDhl7w-66f1fI1LUW0st9j049CNpoWq5G5IoEnr-D7rxY3DpdzrnuSorXtc76sOBalNDqedODyENIkxacL3zRidv9N6bxJ49Ko5mi6tn8smMBFwegN-2x-n_Svrq2_Ig-RdTgZ3M</recordid><startdate>201805</startdate><enddate>201805</enddate><creator>Mischinger, Johannes</creator><creator>Kaufmann, Sascha</creator><creator>Russo, Giorgio I.</creator><creator>Harland, Niklas</creator><creator>Rausch, Steffen</creator><creator>Amend, Bastian</creator><creator>Scharpf, Marcus</creator><creator>Loewe, Lorenz</creator><creator>Todenhoefer, Tilman</creator><creator>Notohamiprodjo, Mike</creator><creator>Nikolaou, Konstantin</creator><creator>Stenzl, Arnulf</creator><creator>Bedke, Jens</creator><creator>Kruck, Stephan</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</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>7QP</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-7353</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-3371</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201805</creationdate><title>Targeted vs systematic robot‐assisted transperineal magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy</title><author>Mischinger, Johannes ; Kaufmann, Sascha ; Russo, Giorgio I. ; Harland, Niklas ; Rausch, Steffen ; Amend, Bastian ; Scharpf, Marcus ; Loewe, Lorenz ; Todenhoefer, Tilman ; Notohamiprodjo, Mike ; Nikolaou, Konstantin ; Stenzl, Arnulf ; Bedke, Jens ; Kruck, Stephan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-22bab30754fa1aab9486c637a7741d6015433b619c4ae4949aef1ba99e58f1823</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - instrumentation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image-Guided Biopsy</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>mpMRI‐TRUS fusion</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>PCSM</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Perineum - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostate - pathology</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System</topic><topic>ProstateCancer</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Rectum - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>robot‐assisted transperineal prostate biopsy</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>targeted biopsy</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Interventional</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mischinger, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaufmann, Sascha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Giorgio I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harland, Niklas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rausch, Steffen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amend, Bastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scharpf, Marcus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loewe, Lorenz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Todenhoefer, Tilman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Notohamiprodjo, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikolaou, Konstantin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stenzl, Arnulf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bedke, Jens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruck, Stephan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mischinger, Johannes</au><au>Kaufmann, Sascha</au><au>Russo, Giorgio I.</au><au>Harland, Niklas</au><au>Rausch, Steffen</au><au>Amend, Bastian</au><au>Scharpf, Marcus</au><au>Loewe, Lorenz</au><au>Todenhoefer, Tilman</au><au>Notohamiprodjo, Mike</au><au>Nikolaou, Konstantin</au><au>Stenzl, Arnulf</au><au>Bedke, Jens</au><au>Kruck, Stephan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Targeted vs systematic robot‐assisted transperineal magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy</atitle><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><date>2018-05</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>121</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>791</spage><epage>798</epage><pages>791-798</pages><issn>1464-4096</issn><eissn>1464-410X</eissn><abstract>Objective
To evaluate the performance of transperineal robot‐assisted (RA) targeted (TB) and systematic (SB) prostate biopsy in primary and repeat biopsy settings.
Patients and Methods
Patients underwent RA biopsy between 2014 and 2016. Before RA‐TB, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was performed. Prostate lesions were scored (Prostate Imaging, Reporting and Data System, version 2) and used for RA‐TB planning. In addition, RA‐SB was performed. Available, whole‐gland pathology was analysed.
Results
In all, 130 patients were biopsy naive and 72 had had a previous negative transrectal ultrasonography‐guided biopsy. In total, 202 patients had suspicious mpMRI lesions. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found in 85% of all prostate cancer cases (n = 123). Total and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates for RA‐TB vs RA‐SB were not significantly different at 77% vs 84% and 80% vs 82%, respectively. RA‐TB demonstrated a better sampling performance compared to RA‐SB (26.4% vs 13.9%; P < 0.001).
Conclusion
Transperineal RA‐TB and ‐SB showed similar clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates in primary and repeat biopsy settings. However, RA‐TB offered a 50% reduction in biopsy cores. Omitting RA‐SB is associated with a significant risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>29211932</pmid><doi>10.1111/bju.14089</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-7353</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-3371</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1464-4096 |
| ispartof | BJU international, 2018-05, Vol.121 (5), p.791-798 |
| issn | 1464-4096 1464-410X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1974014613 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Aged Biopsy Early Detection of Cancer - instrumentation Humans Image-Guided Biopsy Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional Male Middle Aged mpMRI‐TRUS fusion NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance PCSM Performance evaluation Perineum - diagnostic imaging Prostate - diagnostic imaging Prostate - pathology Prostate cancer Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System ProstateCancer Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology Rectum - diagnostic imaging Reproducibility of Results Retrospective Studies robot‐assisted transperineal prostate biopsy Sensitivity and Specificity targeted biopsy Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography, Interventional Ultrasound |
| title | Targeted vs systematic robot‐assisted transperineal magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T02%3A03%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Targeted%20vs%20systematic%20robot%E2%80%90assisted%20transperineal%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging%E2%80%90transrectal%20ultrasonography%20fusion%20prostate%20biopsy&rft.jtitle=BJU%20international&rft.au=Mischinger,%20Johannes&rft.date=2018-05&rft.volume=121&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=791&rft.epage=798&rft.pages=791-798&rft.issn=1464-4096&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bju.14089&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1974014613%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2029560773&rft_id=info:pmid/29211932&rfr_iscdi=true |