Trends in the utilization of imaging for upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the changes in use of the different imaging modalities for diagnosing upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and assess how these changes have affected tumor stage at the time of surgery. Materials and methods We assessed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Resul...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urologic oncology 2016-05, Vol.34 (5), p.236.e23-236.e28
Hauptverfasser: Mohapatra, Anand, B.S, Vemana, Goutham, M.D, Bhayani, Sam, M.D, Baty, Jack, B.A, Vetter, Joel, M.S, Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 236.e28
container_issue 5
container_start_page 236.e23
container_title Urologic oncology
container_volume 34
creator Mohapatra, Anand, B.S
Vemana, Goutham, M.D
Bhayani, Sam, M.D
Baty, Jack, B.A
Vetter, Joel, M.S
Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H
description Abstract Objectives To evaluate the changes in use of the different imaging modalities for diagnosing upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and assess how these changes have affected tumor stage at the time of surgery. Materials and methods We assessed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and linked Medicare claims data (1992–2009) for 5377 patients who underwent surgery for UTUC. We utilized International Classification of Disease—Oncology 3 codes to identify UTUC. International Classification of Disease, ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Current Procedure Terminology codes identified surgical treatment and imaging modalities. We assessed for use of intravenous pyelography, retrograde pyelography (RGP), computed tomography urography (CTU), magnetic resonance urography (MRU), and endoscopy. For each modality, patients were categorized as having received the modality at least once or not at all. Patient characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests. Usage of imaging modalities and tumor stage was trended using Cochran-Armitage tests. We stratified our data into 2 multivariate logistic regression models to determine the effect of imaging modalities on tumor stage: 1992 to 1999 with all modalities except MRU, and 2000 to 2009 with all modalities. Results Our patient population was predominantly White males of more than 70 years old. Intravenous pyelography and RGP declined in use (62% and 72% in 1992 vs. 6% and 58% in 2009, respectively) while computed tomography urography, MRU, and endoscopy increased in use (2%, 0%, and 37% in 1992 vs. 44%, 6%, and 66% in 2009, respectively). In both regression analyses, endoscopy was associated with lower-stage tumors. In the 2000 to 2009 model, RGP was associated with lower-stage tumors, and MRU was associated with higher-stage tumors. Finally, our data showed an increasing number of modalities utilized for each patient (1% receiving 4 modalities in 1992 vs. 20% in 2009). Conclusions We found trends toward the utilization of newer imaging modalities to diagnose UTUC and more modalities per patient. Endoscopy and RGP were associated with smaller tumors, whereas MRU was associated with larger tumors. Further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of the different modalities in diagnosing UTUC.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.12.002
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4834261</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1078143915005803</els_id><sourcerecordid>1782213349</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-816fde0c786d729a4f4d23ba4cdd26b9981023fe5de26e56506adaf86d1b468d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUs9vFCEUnhiNrdU_QcPRy4w8YBjmUmMatU2aeLCeCQtvtqwsrDDTpP3rZbNrU7144iV8v_K-1zRvgXZAQX7YdEtOIUXbMQp9B6yjlD1rTkENvGVilM_rTAfVguDjSfOqlA2lIBTAy-aESUW54OK0ubrJGF0hPpL5Fsky--AfzOxTJGkifmvWPq7JlDJZdjvMZM7GzqRaV3TwJhBrsvUxbc3r5sVkQsE3x_es-fHl883FZXv97evVxafr1vaMza0COTmkdlDSDWw0YhKO8ZUR1jkmV-OogDI-Ye-QSexlT6VxZqpoWAmpHD9rzg-6u2W1RWcx1kxB73INm-91Ml7__RP9rV6nOy0UF0xCFXh_FMjp14Jl1ltfLIZgIqalaBgUY8C5GCu0P0BtTqVknB5tgOp9DXqjjzXofQ0amK41VN67pxkfWX_2XgEfDwCsm7rzmHWxHqNF5zPaWbvk_2tx_o-CDT56a8JPvMeySUuOtQYNulSC_r6_hf0pQE9pX1Pw3-ElsrU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1782213349</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Trends in the utilization of imaging for upper tract urothelial carcinoma</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Mohapatra, Anand, B.S ; Vemana, Goutham, M.D ; Bhayani, Sam, M.D ; Baty, Jack, B.A ; Vetter, Joel, M.S ; Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H</creator><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, Anand, B.S ; Vemana, Goutham, M.D ; Bhayani, Sam, M.D ; Baty, Jack, B.A ; Vetter, Joel, M.S ; Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives To evaluate the changes in use of the different imaging modalities for diagnosing upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and assess how these changes have affected tumor stage at the time of surgery. Materials and methods We assessed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and linked Medicare claims data (1992–2009) for 5377 patients who underwent surgery for UTUC. We utilized International Classification of Disease—Oncology 3 codes to identify UTUC. International Classification of Disease, ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Current Procedure Terminology codes identified surgical treatment and imaging modalities. We assessed for use of intravenous pyelography, retrograde pyelography (RGP), computed tomography urography (CTU), magnetic resonance urography (MRU), and endoscopy. For each modality, patients were categorized as having received the modality at least once or not at all. Patient characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests. Usage of imaging modalities and tumor stage was trended using Cochran-Armitage tests. We stratified our data into 2 multivariate logistic regression models to determine the effect of imaging modalities on tumor stage: 1992 to 1999 with all modalities except MRU, and 2000 to 2009 with all modalities. Results Our patient population was predominantly White males of more than 70 years old. Intravenous pyelography and RGP declined in use (62% and 72% in 1992 vs. 6% and 58% in 2009, respectively) while computed tomography urography, MRU, and endoscopy increased in use (2%, 0%, and 37% in 1992 vs. 44%, 6%, and 66% in 2009, respectively). In both regression analyses, endoscopy was associated with lower-stage tumors. In the 2000 to 2009 model, RGP was associated with lower-stage tumors, and MRU was associated with higher-stage tumors. Finally, our data showed an increasing number of modalities utilized for each patient (1% receiving 4 modalities in 1992 vs. 20% in 2009). Conclusions We found trends toward the utilization of newer imaging modalities to diagnose UTUC and more modalities per patient. Endoscopy and RGP were associated with smaller tumors, whereas MRU was associated with larger tumors. Further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of the different modalities in diagnosing UTUC.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-1439</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2496</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.12.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26803434</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell - diagnostic imaging ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Diagnosis ; Endoscopy ; Endoscopy - trends ; Endoscopy - utilization ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging ; Logistic Models ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - trends ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization ; Male ; Medicare - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Multimodal Imaging - trends ; Multimodal Imaging - utilization ; Multivariate Analysis ; SEER Program - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Surgery ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - trends ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization ; United States ; Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer ; Urinary Tract - diagnostic imaging ; Urinary Tract - pathology ; Urography - trends ; Urography - utilization ; Urologic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Urologic oncology, 2016-05, Vol.34 (5), p.236.e23-236.e28</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-816fde0c786d729a4f4d23ba4cdd26b9981023fe5de26e56506adaf86d1b468d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-816fde0c786d729a4f4d23ba4cdd26b9981023fe5de26e56506adaf86d1b468d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4488-6918</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078143915005803$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26803434$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, Anand, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vemana, Goutham, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhayani, Sam, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baty, Jack, B.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vetter, Joel, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H</creatorcontrib><title>Trends in the utilization of imaging for upper tract urothelial carcinoma</title><title>Urologic oncology</title><addtitle>Urol Oncol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives To evaluate the changes in use of the different imaging modalities for diagnosing upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and assess how these changes have affected tumor stage at the time of surgery. Materials and methods We assessed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and linked Medicare claims data (1992–2009) for 5377 patients who underwent surgery for UTUC. We utilized International Classification of Disease—Oncology 3 codes to identify UTUC. International Classification of Disease, ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Current Procedure Terminology codes identified surgical treatment and imaging modalities. We assessed for use of intravenous pyelography, retrograde pyelography (RGP), computed tomography urography (CTU), magnetic resonance urography (MRU), and endoscopy. For each modality, patients were categorized as having received the modality at least once or not at all. Patient characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests. Usage of imaging modalities and tumor stage was trended using Cochran-Armitage tests. We stratified our data into 2 multivariate logistic regression models to determine the effect of imaging modalities on tumor stage: 1992 to 1999 with all modalities except MRU, and 2000 to 2009 with all modalities. Results Our patient population was predominantly White males of more than 70 years old. Intravenous pyelography and RGP declined in use (62% and 72% in 1992 vs. 6% and 58% in 2009, respectively) while computed tomography urography, MRU, and endoscopy increased in use (2%, 0%, and 37% in 1992 vs. 44%, 6%, and 66% in 2009, respectively). In both regression analyses, endoscopy was associated with lower-stage tumors. In the 2000 to 2009 model, RGP was associated with lower-stage tumors, and MRU was associated with higher-stage tumors. Finally, our data showed an increasing number of modalities utilized for each patient (1% receiving 4 modalities in 1992 vs. 20% in 2009). Conclusions We found trends toward the utilization of newer imaging modalities to diagnose UTUC and more modalities per patient. Endoscopy and RGP were associated with smaller tumors, whereas MRU was associated with larger tumors. Further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of the different modalities in diagnosing UTUC.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Transitional Cell - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Chi-Square Distribution</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Endoscopy - trends</subject><subject>Endoscopy - utilization</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - trends</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicare - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Multimodal Imaging - trends</subject><subject>Multimodal Imaging - utilization</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>SEER Program - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - trends</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer</subject><subject>Urinary Tract - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Urinary Tract - pathology</subject><subject>Urography - trends</subject><subject>Urography - utilization</subject><subject>Urologic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>1078-1439</issn><issn>1873-2496</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUs9vFCEUnhiNrdU_QcPRy4w8YBjmUmMatU2aeLCeCQtvtqwsrDDTpP3rZbNrU7144iV8v_K-1zRvgXZAQX7YdEtOIUXbMQp9B6yjlD1rTkENvGVilM_rTAfVguDjSfOqlA2lIBTAy-aESUW54OK0ubrJGF0hPpL5Fsky--AfzOxTJGkifmvWPq7JlDJZdjvMZM7GzqRaV3TwJhBrsvUxbc3r5sVkQsE3x_es-fHl883FZXv97evVxafr1vaMza0COTmkdlDSDWw0YhKO8ZUR1jkmV-OogDI-Ye-QSexlT6VxZqpoWAmpHD9rzg-6u2W1RWcx1kxB73INm-91Ml7__RP9rV6nOy0UF0xCFXh_FMjp14Jl1ltfLIZgIqalaBgUY8C5GCu0P0BtTqVknB5tgOp9DXqjjzXofQ0amK41VN67pxkfWX_2XgEfDwCsm7rzmHWxHqNF5zPaWbvk_2tx_o-CDT56a8JPvMeySUuOtQYNulSC_r6_hf0pQE9pX1Pw3-ElsrU</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Mohapatra, Anand, B.S</creator><creator>Vemana, Goutham, M.D</creator><creator>Bhayani, Sam, M.D</creator><creator>Baty, Jack, B.A</creator><creator>Vetter, Joel, M.S</creator><creator>Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H</creator><general>Elsevier 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>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-6918</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Trends in the utilization of imaging for upper tract urothelial carcinoma</title><author>Mohapatra, Anand, B.S ; Vemana, Goutham, M.D ; Bhayani, Sam, M.D ; Baty, Jack, B.A ; Vetter, Joel, M.S ; Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-816fde0c786d729a4f4d23ba4cdd26b9981023fe5de26e56506adaf86d1b468d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Transitional Cell - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Chi-Square Distribution</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Endoscopy - trends</topic><topic>Endoscopy - utilization</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - trends</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicare - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Multimodal Imaging - trends</topic><topic>Multimodal Imaging - utilization</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>SEER Program - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - trends</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer</topic><topic>Urinary Tract - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Urinary Tract - pathology</topic><topic>Urography - trends</topic><topic>Urography - utilization</topic><topic>Urologic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mohapatra, Anand, B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vemana, Goutham, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhayani, Sam, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baty, Jack, B.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vetter, Joel, M.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Urologic oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mohapatra, Anand, B.S</au><au>Vemana, Goutham, M.D</au><au>Bhayani, Sam, M.D</au><au>Baty, Jack, B.A</au><au>Vetter, Joel, M.S</au><au>Strope, Seth A., M.D., M.P.H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Trends in the utilization of imaging for upper tract urothelial carcinoma</atitle><jtitle>Urologic oncology</jtitle><addtitle>Urol Oncol</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>236.e23</spage><epage>236.e28</epage><pages>236.e23-236.e28</pages><issn>1078-1439</issn><eissn>1873-2496</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objectives To evaluate the changes in use of the different imaging modalities for diagnosing upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and assess how these changes have affected tumor stage at the time of surgery. Materials and methods We assessed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and linked Medicare claims data (1992–2009) for 5377 patients who underwent surgery for UTUC. We utilized International Classification of Disease—Oncology 3 codes to identify UTUC. International Classification of Disease, ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Current Procedure Terminology codes identified surgical treatment and imaging modalities. We assessed for use of intravenous pyelography, retrograde pyelography (RGP), computed tomography urography (CTU), magnetic resonance urography (MRU), and endoscopy. For each modality, patients were categorized as having received the modality at least once or not at all. Patient characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests. Usage of imaging modalities and tumor stage was trended using Cochran-Armitage tests. We stratified our data into 2 multivariate logistic regression models to determine the effect of imaging modalities on tumor stage: 1992 to 1999 with all modalities except MRU, and 2000 to 2009 with all modalities. Results Our patient population was predominantly White males of more than 70 years old. Intravenous pyelography and RGP declined in use (62% and 72% in 1992 vs. 6% and 58% in 2009, respectively) while computed tomography urography, MRU, and endoscopy increased in use (2%, 0%, and 37% in 1992 vs. 44%, 6%, and 66% in 2009, respectively). In both regression analyses, endoscopy was associated with lower-stage tumors. In the 2000 to 2009 model, RGP was associated with lower-stage tumors, and MRU was associated with higher-stage tumors. Finally, our data showed an increasing number of modalities utilized for each patient (1% receiving 4 modalities in 1992 vs. 20% in 2009). Conclusions We found trends toward the utilization of newer imaging modalities to diagnose UTUC and more modalities per patient. Endoscopy and RGP were associated with smaller tumors, whereas MRU was associated with larger tumors. Further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of the different modalities in diagnosing UTUC.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26803434</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.12.002</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-6918</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1078-1439
ispartof Urologic oncology, 2016-05, Vol.34 (5), p.236.e23-236.e28
issn 1078-1439
1873-2496
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4834261
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Carcinoma, Transitional Cell - diagnostic imaging
Chi-Square Distribution
Diagnosis
Endoscopy
Endoscopy - trends
Endoscopy - utilization
Female
Humans
Imaging
Logistic Models
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - trends
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - utilization
Male
Medicare - statistics & numerical data
Multimodal Imaging - trends
Multimodal Imaging - utilization
Multivariate Analysis
SEER Program - statistics & numerical data
Surgery
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - trends
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - utilization
United States
Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer
Urinary Tract - diagnostic imaging
Urinary Tract - pathology
Urography - trends
Urography - utilization
Urologic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Urology
title Trends in the utilization of imaging for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T23%3A50%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trends%20in%20the%20utilization%20of%20imaging%20for%20upper%20tract%20urothelial%20carcinoma&rft.jtitle=Urologic%20oncology&rft.au=Mohapatra,%20Anand,%20B.S&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=236.e23&rft.epage=236.e28&rft.pages=236.e23-236.e28&rft.issn=1078-1439&rft.eissn=1873-2496&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.12.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1782213349%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1782213349&rft_id=info:pmid/26803434&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1078143915005803&rfr_iscdi=true