The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review.
Aftercare
Breast cancer
Personalised follow-up
Surveillance
Journal
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
ISSN: 1433-7339
Titre abrégé: Support Care Cancer
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9302957
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 May 2024
02 May 2024
Historique:
received:
17
11
2023
accepted:
27
04
2024
medline:
2
5
2024
pubmed:
2
5
2024
entrez:
2
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)effectiveness of personalised follow-up. PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01-01-2010 and 10-10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients ≥ 18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described. Overall, 3708 publications were identified, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation effect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns. The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38695938
doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-08530-2
pii: 10.1007/s00520-024-08530-2
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
323Subventions
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10330032010001
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10330032010001
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10330032010001
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10330032010001
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10330032010001
Pays : Netherlands
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10330032010001
Pays : Netherlands
Investigateurs
Marissa C van Maaren
(MC)
Valesca P Retel
(VP)
Bart Knottnerus
(B)
Elise van Leeuwen-Stok
(E)
Cristina Guerrero-Paez
(C)
Jako S Burgers
(JS)
Anneke M Zeillemaker
(AM)
Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters
(MTFDV)
Marjan van Hezewijk
(M)
Ester J M Siemerink
(EJM)
Aafke H Honkoop
(AH)
Jeroen Veltman
(J)
Ritse Mann
(R)
Jannet Wiegersma
(J)
Saskia Claassen
(S)
Marije L van der Lee
(ML)
Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan
(CF)
J C Korevaar
(JC)
M van Korevaar
(M)
E Siemerink
(E)
A M Zeillemaker
(AM)
A Klaassen-Dekker
(A)
C H C Drossaert
(CHC)
S C Siesling
(SC)
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, Mafra A, Singh D, Laversanne M et al (2022) Current and future burden of breast cancer: global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast 66:15–23
pubmed: 36084384
pmcid: 9465273
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.08.010
van der Meer DJ, Kramer I, van Maaren MC, van Diest PJ, S CL, Maduro JH, et al (2021) Comprehensive trends in incidence, treatment, survival and mortality of first primary invasive breast cancer stratified by age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017. Int J Cancer 148(9):2289–303
pubmed: 33252836
doi: 10.1002/ijc.33417
Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, Kramer JL, Newman LA, Minihan A et al (2022) Breast cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72(6):524–541
pubmed: 36190501
doi: 10.3322/caac.21754
Loibl S, Andre F, Bachelot T, Barrios CH, Bergh J, Burstein HJ et al (2024) Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 35(2):159–182
pubmed: 38101773
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.016
West of Scotland Cancer Network. Breast Cancer Regional Follow-up Guideline v3.0. 2024. https://www.woscan.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/Final-published_Breast-Follow-up-Regional-Guidance-V3.0_Apr21.pdf . Accessed on 15 Mar 2024
Fang SY, Wang YL, Lu WH, Lee KT, Kuo YL, Fetzer SJ (2020) Long-term effectiveness of an E-based survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors: a quasi-experimental study. Patient Educ Couns 103(3):549–555
pubmed: 31558323
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.012
Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg. Borstkanker bij vrouwen: diagnose, behandeling en follow-up. 2013. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/2021-11/KCE_143As_Borstkanker_0.pdf . Accessed on 7 Mar 2024
De Rose F, Meduri B, De Santis MC, Ferro A, Marino L, Colciago RR et al (2022) Rethinking breast cancer follow-up based on individual risk and recurrence management. Cancer Treat Rev 109:102434
pubmed: 35933845
doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102434
Geurts SM, de Vegt F, Siesling S, Flobbe K, Aben KK, van der Heiden-van der Loo M, et al (2012) Pattern of follow-up care and early relapse detection in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136(3):859–68
pubmed: 23117854
doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2297-9
Berendsen AJ, Roorda C, Jansen L, de Bock GH (2016) Patients’ beliefs about the aims of breast cancer follow-up: a qualitative study. Maturitas 91:140–144
pubmed: 27451332
doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.06.014
van Maaren MC, de Munck L, Strobbe LJA, Sonke GS, Westenend PJ, Smidt ML et al (2019) Ten-year recurrence rates for breast cancer subtypes in the Netherlands: a large population-based study. Int J Cancer 144(2):263–272
pubmed: 30368776
doi: 10.1002/ijc.31914
Kurian AW, McClure LA, John EM, Horn-Ross PL, Ford JM, Clarke CA (2009) Second primary breast cancer occurrence according to hormone receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(15):1058–1065
pubmed: 19590058
pmcid: 2720990
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp181
Ankersmid JW, van Hoeve JC, Strobbe LJA, van Riet YEA, van Uden-Kraan CF, Siesling S et al (2021) Follow-up after breast cancer: variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 30(6):e13505
pubmed: 34449103
doi: 10.1111/ecc.13505
Fan R, Wang L, Bu X, Wang W, Zhu J (2023) Unmet supportive care needs of breast cancer survivors: a systematic scoping review. BMC Cancer 23(1):587
pubmed: 37365504
pmcid: 10294377
doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11087-8
Chopra I, Chopra A (2014) Follow-up care for breast cancer survivors: improving patient outcomes. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 5:71–85
pubmed: 25210481
pmcid: 4156000
doi: 10.2147/PROM.S49586
de Ligt KM, van Egdom LSE, Koppert LB, Siesling S, van Til JA (2019) Opportunities for personalised follow-up care among patients with breast cancer: a scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 28(3):e13092
pubmed: 31074162
Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT et al (2019) Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-updagger. Ann Oncol 30(8):1194–1220
pubmed: 31161190
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz173
National Institute for Health Research. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ . Accessed on 03 Oct 2022
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:14898
Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
pmcid: 5062054
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
Wallner LP, Abrahamse P, Gargaro JG, Radhakrishnan A, Mullins MA, An LC et al (2021) Improving the delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary breast cancer treatment through a multi-level intervention: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 189(1):81–92
pubmed: 34235608
pmcid: 8375358
doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06257-w
Haq R, Kong A, Gulasingam P (2021) A multidisciplinary approach to implement personalized breast cancer treatment and care plans. Curr Oncol 28(1):767–782
pubmed: 33540881
pmcid: 7985785
doi: 10.3390/curroncol28010075
Admiraal JM, van der Velden AWG, Geerling JI, Burgerhof JGM, Bouma G, Walenkamp AME et al (2017) Web-based tailored psychoeducation for breast cancer patients at the onset of the survivorship phase: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 54(4):466–475
pubmed: 28711750
doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.07.009
Coyle D, Grunfeld E, Coyle K, Pond G, Julian JA, Levine MN (2014) Cost effectiveness of a survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors. J Oncol Pract 10(2):e86-92
pubmed: 24326740
doi: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001142
Grunfeld E, Julian JA, Pond G, Maunsell E, Coyle D, Folkes A et al (2011) Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(36):4755–4762
pubmed: 22042959
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8373
Boekhout AH, Maunsell E, Pond GR, Julian JA, Coyle D, Levine MN et al (2015) A survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors: extended results of a randomized clinical trial. J Cancer Surviv 9(4):683–691
pubmed: 25896265
doi: 10.1007/s11764-015-0443-1
Hershman DL, Greenlee H, Awad D, Kalinsky K, Maurer M, Kranwinkel G et al (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a clinic-based survivorship intervention following adjuvant therapy in breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(3):795–806
pubmed: 23542954
doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2486-1
Rocque GB, Wisinski KB, Buhr KA, Froeschner JL, Jones N, Donohue S et al (2014) Development and evaluation of a survey to assess survivor knowledge change after survivorship care plans: WiSDOM-B (Wisconsin Survey of cancer DiagnOsis and Management in Breast cancer). J Cancer Educ 29(2):270–277
pubmed: 24343267
pmcid: 4029853
doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0591-9
Wheelock AE, Bock MA, Martin EL, Hwang J, Ernest ML, Rugo HS et al (2015) SIS.NET: a randomized controlled trial evaluating a web-based system for symptom management after treatment of breast cancer. Cancer 121(6):893–9
pubmed: 25469673
doi: 10.1002/cncr.29088
Ruddy KJ, Guo H, Baker EL, Goldstein MJ, Mullaney EE, Shulman LN et al (2016) Randomized phase 2 trial of a coordinated breast cancer follow-up care program. Cancer 122(22):3546–3554
pubmed: 27459331
doi: 10.1002/cncr.30206
Kvale EA, Huang CS, Meneses KM, Demark-Wahnefried W, Bae S, Azuero CB et al (2016) Patient-centered support in the survivorship care transition: outcomes from the Patient-Owned Survivorship Care Plan Intervention. Cancer 122(20):3232–3242
pubmed: 27387096
doi: 10.1002/cncr.30136
Maly RC, Liang LJ, Liu Y, Griggs JJ, Ganz PA (2017) Randomized controlled trial of survivorship care plans among low-income, predominantly Latina breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 35(16):1814–1821
pubmed: 28418767
pmcid: 5455593
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.9497
Tevaarwerk AJ, Hocking WG, Buhr KA, Gribble M, Seaborne LA, Wisinski KB et al (2019) A randomized trial of immediate versus delayed survivorship care plan receipt on patient satisfaction and knowledge of diagnosis and treatment. Cancer 125(6):1000–1007
pubmed: 30690714
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31875
Ramirez AG, Munoz E, Long Parma D, Perez A, Santillan A (2020) Quality of life outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of patient navigation in Latina breast cancer survivors. Cancer Med 9(21):7837–7848
pubmed: 32979042
pmcid: 7643682
doi: 10.1002/cam4.3272
Riis CL, Jensen PT, Bechmann T, Moller S, Coulter A, Steffensen KD (2020) Satisfaction with care and adherence to treatment when using patient reported outcomes to individualize follow-up care for women with early breast cancer - a pilot randomized controlled trial. Acta Oncol 59(4):444–452
pubmed: 32000559
doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1717604
van der Hout A, van Uden-Kraan CF, Holtmaat K, Jansen F, Lissenberg-Witte BI, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP et al (2020) Role of eHealth application Oncokompas in supporting self-management of symptoms and health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 21(1):80–94
pubmed: 31838009
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30675-8
Rutkowski N, MacDonald-Liska C, Baines KA, Samuel V, Harris C, Lebel S (2021) Standardized versus personalized survivorship care plans for breast cancer survivors: a program evaluation. Can Oncol Nurs J 31(4):451–456
pubmed: 34786462
pmcid: 8565436
doi: 10.5737/23688076314451456
O’Hea EL, Creamer S, Flahive JM, Keating BA, Crocker CR, Williamson SR et al (2022) Survivorship care planning, quality of life, and confidence to transition to survivorship: a randomized controlled trial with women ending treatment for breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol 40(5):574–594
pubmed: 34151734
doi: 10.1080/07347332.2021.1936336
Witteveen A, de Munck L, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Sonke GS, Poortmans PM, Boersma LJ et al (2020) Evaluating the age-based recommendations for long-term follow-up in breast cancer. Oncologist 25(9):e1330–e1338
pubmed: 32510767
pmcid: 7485372
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0973
de Ligt KM, de Rooij BH, Walraven I, Heins MJ, Verloop J, Siesling S et al (2022) Varying severities of symptoms underline the relevance of personalized follow-up care in breast cancer survivors: latent class cluster analyses in a cross-sectional cohort. Support Care Cancer 30(10):7873–7883
pubmed: 35727375
doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-07229-6
Ankersmid JW, Spronk PER, Zeillemaker AM, Siesling S (2022) Health care professionals overestimate the risk for locoregional recurrences after breast cancer treatment depending on their specialty. Breast Cancer Res Treat 193(2):293–303
pubmed: 35279762
pmcid: 9090881
doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06549-9
Ankersmid JW, Drossaert CHC, van Riet YEA, Strobbe LJA, Siesling S, Santeon VBCG (2023) Needs and preferences of breast cancer survivors regarding outcome-based shared decision-making about personalised post-treatment surveillance. J Cancer Surviv 17(5):1471–1479
Ankersmid JW, Siesling S, Strobbe LJA, Meulepas JM, van Riet YEA, Engels N et al (2022) Supporting shared decision-making about surveillance after breast cancer with personalized recurrence risk calculations: development of a patient decision aid using the international patient decision AIDS standards development process in combination with a mixed methods design. JMIR Cancer 8(4):e38088
pubmed: 36374536
pmcid: 9706380
doi: 10.2196/38088
Volkel V, Hueting TA, Draeger T, van Maaren MC, de Munck L, Strobbe LJA et al (2021) Improved risk estimation of locoregional recurrence, secondary contralateral tumors and distant metastases in early breast cancer: the INFLUENCE 2.0 model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 189(3):817–26
pubmed: 34338943
pmcid: 8505302
doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06335-z
Klaassen-Dekker A, Drossaert CHC, Van Maaren MC, Van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Retel VP, Korevaar JC et al (2023) Personalized surveillance and aftercare for non-metastasized breast cancer: the NABOR study protocol of a multiple interrupted time series design. BMC Cancer 23(1):1112
pubmed: 37964214
pmcid: 10647159
doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11504-y
Draeger T, Voelkel V, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Lavric M, Veltman J, Dassen A et al (2020) Applying risk-based follow-up strategies on the dutch breast cancer population: consequences for care and costs. Value Health 23(9):1149–1156
pubmed: 32940232
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.05.012
Bessen T, Keefe DM, Karnon J (2015) Does one size fit all? Cost utility analyses of alternative mammographic follow-up schedules, by risk of recurrence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 31(5):281–288
pubmed: 26654334
doi: 10.1017/S0266462315000598
Neuman HB, Schumacher JR, Schneider DF, Winslow ER, Busch RA, Tucholka JL et al (2017) Variation in the types of providers participating in breast cancer follow-up care: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(3):683–691
pubmed: 27709403
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5611-7
Tucholka JL, Jacobson N, Steffens NM, Schumacher JR, Tevaarwerk AJ, Anderson B et al (2018) Breast cancer survivor’s perspectives on the role different providers play in follow-up care. Support Care Cancer 26(6):2015–2022
pubmed: 29332175
pmcid: 6295322
doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4042-3
Riis CL, Bechmann T, Jensen PT, Coulter A, Steffensen KD (2019) Are patient-reported outcomes useful in post-treatment follow-up care for women with early breast cancer? A scoping review. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 10:117–127
pubmed: 30988648
pmcid: 6443226
doi: 10.2147/PROM.S195296
van Egdom LSE, Oemrawsingh A, Verweij LM, Lingsma HF, Koppert LB, Verhoef C et al (2019) Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical breast cancer care: a systematic review. Value Health 22(10):1197–1226
pubmed: 31563263
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1927
Szuhany KL, Malgaroli M, Riley G, Miron CD, Suzuki R, Park JH et al (2021) Barriers and engagement in breast cancer survivorship wellness activities. Breast Cancer Res Treat 188(1):317–325
pubmed: 34095986
pmcid: 8482782
doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06279-4
Sisler J, Chaput G, Sussman J, Ozokwelu E (2016) Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: practical guide to survivorship care for family physicians. Can Fam Physician 62(10):805–811
pubmed: 27737976
pmcid: 5063767
Avery J, Thomas R, Howell D, Dubouloz Wilner CJ (2023) Empowering cancer survivors in managing their own health: a paradoxical dynamic process of taking and letting go of control. Qual Health Res 33(5):412–425
pubmed: 36825869
pmcid: 10126457
doi: 10.1177/10497323231158629
Shin S, Park H (2017) Effect of empowerment on the quality of life of the survivors of breast cancer: The moderating effect of self-help group participation. Jpn J Nurs Sci 14(4):311–319
pubmed: 28105793
doi: 10.1111/jjns.12161
Rozenblum R, Lisby M, Hockey PM, Levtizion-Korach O, Salzberg CA, Lipsitz S et al (2011) Uncovering the blind spot of patient satisfaction: an international survey. BMJ Qual Saf 20(11):959–965
pubmed: 21949436
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000306
Klaassen L, Dirksen C, Boersma L, Hoving C, of the Bbg (2018) Developing an aftercare decision aid; assessing health professionals’ and patients’ preferences. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 27(2):e12730
pubmed: 28727259
doi: 10.1111/ecc.12730
Tompkins C, Scanlon K, Scott E, Ream E, Harding S, Armes J (2016) Survivorship care and support following treatment for breast cancer: a multi-ethnic comparative qualitative study of women’s experiences. BMC Health Serv Res 16(1):401
pubmed: 27535665
pmcid: 4989374
doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1625-x
Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, Col N, Feldman-Stewart D, Gavaruzzi T et al (2013) Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(Suppl 2(Suppl 2)):S8
pubmed: 24625261
pmcid: 4044232
doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S8
Klaassen LA, Dirksen CD, Boersma LJ, Hoving C, group Bb (2018) A novel patient decision aid for aftercare in breast cancer patients: a promising tool to reduce costs by individualizing aftercare. Breast 41:144–50
pubmed: 30092501
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.06.015
Boer H, Lubberts S, Bunskoek S, Nuver J, Lefrandt JD, Steursma G et al (2022) Shared-care survivorship program for testicular cancer patients: safe and feasible. ESMO Open 7(3):100488
pubmed: 35576694
pmcid: 9271504
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100488
Sieswerda E, Postma A, van Dalen EC, van der Pal HJH, Tissing WJE, Rammeloo LAJ et al (2012) The Dutch Childhood Oncology Group guideline for follow-up of asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors. Ann Oncol 23(8):2191–2198
pubmed: 22312159
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr595
Stoll CRT, Izadi S, Fowler S, Green P, Suls J, Colditz GA (2019) The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 10(4):539–545
pubmed: 31272125
pmcid: 6989049
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1369
Bertizzolo L, Bossuyt P, Atal I, Ravaud P, Dechartres A (2019) Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design. BMJ Open 9(4):e028382
pubmed: 30940766
pmcid: 6500379
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028382
Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP (2006) Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 59(7):697–703
pubmed: 16765272
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.010
Ong WL, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommel ACM, Stowell C, Allison KH, Benn KE et al (2017) A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer: the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) initiative. JAMA Oncol 3(5):677–685
pubmed: 28033439
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4851