Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method

Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Breast cancer research and treatment 2015-06, Vol.151 (2), p.427-434
Hauptverfasser: Tiro, Jasmin A., Sanders, Joanne M., Shay, L. Aubree, Murphy, Caitlin C., A. Hamann, Heidi, Bartholomew, L. Kay, Savas, Lara S., Vernon, Sally W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 434
container_issue 2
container_start_page 427
container_title Breast cancer research and treatment
container_volume 151
creator Tiro, Jasmin A.
Sanders, Joanne M.
Shay, L. Aubree
Murphy, Caitlin C.
A. Hamann, Heidi
Bartholomew, L. Kay
Savas, Lara S.
Vernon, Sally W.
description Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry ( n  = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4935542</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A435334942</galeid><sourcerecordid>A435334942</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c601t-d52628dc919976de8e97297d7ff5d254bcecea42d48f6892f805a55c9b9ff9c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kt-KEzEUxgdR3Fp9AG8kIIg3syaZyWRyIyyL_2DBG_U2pMlJmyUzqUmm2Lfwkc2069qKkotAzu98J-fjq6rnBF8SjPmbRDBrRY0Jq5um5zV9UC0I403NKeEPqwUmHa-7HncX1ZOUbjHGgmPxuLqgTFCK-2ZR_fymvDMquzCiYFECb-sI2xAzGLQNKdc5gsoDjBkNahjCOqrtZo_SFHfgvFejBqSGMK7RqoApIz0_xQPgdiEmtNoj8KBzDKPTaADjtPIogg7RIPiRo9KH8QPkTTBPq0dW-QTP7u5l9fX9uy_XH-ubzx8-XV_d1LrDJNeG0Y72RgsiBO8M9CA4Fdxwa5mhrF1p0KBaatredr2gtsdMMabFSlgrNGuW1duj7nZalT_psmBUXm6jG1Tcy6CcPK-MbiPXYSdb0TDW0iLw-k4ghu8TpCwHlzTMlkCYkiRdT2jX8MIvq5d_obdhimNZr1BCUEybHv-h1sqDdKMNszWzqLxqG9Y0rTiMvfwHVY6BwekwgnXl_azh1UnDBpTPmxT8NHuezkFyBHUMKUWw92YQLOe8yWPeZMmbnPMm554Xpy7ed_wOWAHoEUilNK4hnqz-X9VfuuvjNg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1699202380</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Tiro, Jasmin A. ; Sanders, Joanne M. ; Shay, L. Aubree ; Murphy, Caitlin C. ; A. Hamann, Heidi ; Bartholomew, L. Kay ; Savas, Lara S. ; Vernon, Sally W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tiro, Jasmin A. ; Sanders, Joanne M. ; Shay, L. Aubree ; Murphy, Caitlin C. ; A. Hamann, Heidi ; Bartholomew, L. Kay ; Savas, Lara S. ; Vernon, Sally W.</creatorcontrib><description>Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry ( n  = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6806</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7217</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25922083</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BCTRD6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Cancer research ; Cancer survivors ; Cancer therapies ; Electronic Health Records ; Electronic records ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Humans ; Mammography ; Medical records ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Oncology ; Public Health Surveillance ; Risk Factors ; Self Report ; Surveillance ; Survivor ; Survivors ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Breast cancer research and treatment, 2015-06, Vol.151 (2), p.427-434</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c601t-d52628dc919976de8e97297d7ff5d254bcecea42d48f6892f805a55c9b9ff9c53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c601t-d52628dc919976de8e97297d7ff5d254bcecea42d48f6892f805a55c9b9ff9c53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,782,786,887,27933,27934,41497,42566,51328</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25922083$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tiro, Jasmin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Joanne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shay, L. Aubree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Caitlin C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>A. Hamann, Heidi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartholomew, L. Kay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savas, Lara S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernon, Sally W.</creatorcontrib><title>Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method</title><title>Breast cancer research and treatment</title><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><description>Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry ( n  = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Cancer research</subject><subject>Cancer survivors</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Electronic Health Records</subject><subject>Electronic records</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Medical records</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Public Health Surveillance</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Self Report</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Survivor</subject><subject>Survivors</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0167-6806</issn><issn>1573-7217</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kt-KEzEUxgdR3Fp9AG8kIIg3syaZyWRyIyyL_2DBG_U2pMlJmyUzqUmm2Lfwkc2069qKkotAzu98J-fjq6rnBF8SjPmbRDBrRY0Jq5um5zV9UC0I403NKeEPqwUmHa-7HncX1ZOUbjHGgmPxuLqgTFCK-2ZR_fymvDMquzCiYFECb-sI2xAzGLQNKdc5gsoDjBkNahjCOqrtZo_SFHfgvFejBqSGMK7RqoApIz0_xQPgdiEmtNoj8KBzDKPTaADjtPIogg7RIPiRo9KH8QPkTTBPq0dW-QTP7u5l9fX9uy_XH-ubzx8-XV_d1LrDJNeG0Y72RgsiBO8M9CA4Fdxwa5mhrF1p0KBaatredr2gtsdMMabFSlgrNGuW1duj7nZalT_psmBUXm6jG1Tcy6CcPK-MbiPXYSdb0TDW0iLw-k4ghu8TpCwHlzTMlkCYkiRdT2jX8MIvq5d_obdhimNZr1BCUEybHv-h1sqDdKMNszWzqLxqG9Y0rTiMvfwHVY6BwekwgnXl_azh1UnDBpTPmxT8NHuezkFyBHUMKUWw92YQLOe8yWPeZMmbnPMm554Xpy7ed_wOWAHoEUilNK4hnqz-X9VfuuvjNg</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Tiro, Jasmin A.</creator><creator>Sanders, Joanne M.</creator><creator>Shay, L. Aubree</creator><creator>Murphy, Caitlin C.</creator><creator>A. Hamann, Heidi</creator><creator>Bartholomew, L. Kay</creator><creator>Savas, Lara S.</creator><creator>Vernon, Sally W.</creator><general>Springer US</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>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method</title><author>Tiro, Jasmin A. ; Sanders, Joanne M. ; Shay, L. Aubree ; Murphy, Caitlin C. ; A. Hamann, Heidi ; Bartholomew, L. Kay ; Savas, Lara S. ; Vernon, Sally W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c601t-d52628dc919976de8e97297d7ff5d254bcecea42d48f6892f805a55c9b9ff9c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Cancer research</topic><topic>Cancer survivors</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Electronic Health Records</topic><topic>Electronic records</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Medical records</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Public Health Surveillance</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Self Report</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Survivor</topic><topic>Survivors</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tiro, Jasmin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Joanne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shay, L. Aubree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Caitlin C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>A. Hamann, Heidi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartholomew, L. Kay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savas, Lara S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernon, Sally W.</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 Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</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>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</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 China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tiro, Jasmin A.</au><au>Sanders, Joanne M.</au><au>Shay, L. Aubree</au><au>Murphy, Caitlin C.</au><au>A. Hamann, Heidi</au><au>Bartholomew, L. Kay</au><au>Savas, Lara S.</au><au>Vernon, Sally W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method</atitle><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle><stitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</stitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>151</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>427</spage><epage>434</epage><pages>427-434</pages><issn>0167-6806</issn><eissn>1573-7217</eissn><coden>BCTRD6</coden><abstract>Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004–2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry ( n  = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors’ self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7–12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors’ self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>25922083</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-6806
ispartof Breast cancer research and treatment, 2015-06, Vol.151 (2), p.427-434
issn 0167-6806
1573-7217
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4935542
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breast cancer
Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis
Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology
Cancer research
Cancer survivors
Cancer therapies
Electronic Health Records
Electronic records
Epidemiology
Female
Humans
Mammography
Medical records
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Oncology
Public Health Surveillance
Risk Factors
Self Report
Surveillance
Survivor
Survivors
Validity
title Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-03T12%3A38%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validation%20of%20self-reported%20post-treatment%20mammography%20surveillance%20among%20breast%20cancer%20survivors%20by%20electronic%20medical%20record%20extraction%20method&rft.jtitle=Breast%20cancer%20research%20and%20treatment&rft.au=Tiro,%20Jasmin%20A.&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=151&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=427&rft.epage=434&rft.pages=427-434&rft.issn=0167-6806&rft.eissn=1573-7217&rft.coden=BCTRD6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA435334942%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1699202380&rft_id=info:pmid/25922083&rft_galeid=A435334942&rfr_iscdi=true