Identifying the best candidate for focal therapy: a comprehensive review.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Oct 2024
23 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
25
06
2024
accepted:
03
10
2024
revised:
25
09
2024
medline:
24
10
2024
pubmed:
24
10
2024
entrez:
24
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Despite the evidence supporting the use of focal therapy (FT) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa), considerable variability exists in the patient selection criteria across current studies. This study aims to review the most recent evidence concerning the optimal approach to patient selection for FT in PCa. PubMed database was systematically queried for studies reporting patient selection criteria in FT for PCa before December 31, 2023. After excluding non-relevant articles and a quality assessment, data were extracted, and results were described qualitatively. There is no level I evidence regarding the best patient selection approach for FT in patients with PCa. Current international multidisciplinary consensus statements recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) followed by MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy for all candidates. FT may be considered in clinically localized, intermediate risk (Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3), and preferably unifocal disease. Patients should have an acceptable life expectancy. Those with prostate volume >50 ml and erectile dysfunction should not be excluded from FT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of < 20 (ideally < 10) ng/mL is recommended. However, the utility of other molecular and genomic biomarkers in patient selection for FT remains unknown. FT may be considered in well-selected patients with localized PCa. This review provides a comprehensive insight regarding the optimal approach for patient selection in FT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite the evidence supporting the use of focal therapy (FT) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa), considerable variability exists in the patient selection criteria across current studies. This study aims to review the most recent evidence concerning the optimal approach to patient selection for FT in PCa.
METHODS
METHODS
PubMed database was systematically queried for studies reporting patient selection criteria in FT for PCa before December 31, 2023. After excluding non-relevant articles and a quality assessment, data were extracted, and results were described qualitatively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There is no level I evidence regarding the best patient selection approach for FT in patients with PCa. Current international multidisciplinary consensus statements recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) followed by MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy for all candidates. FT may be considered in clinically localized, intermediate risk (Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3), and preferably unifocal disease. Patients should have an acceptable life expectancy. Those with prostate volume >50 ml and erectile dysfunction should not be excluded from FT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of < 20 (ideally < 10) ng/mL is recommended. However, the utility of other molecular and genomic biomarkers in patient selection for FT remains unknown.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
FT may be considered in well-selected patients with localized PCa. This review provides a comprehensive insight regarding the optimal approach for patient selection in FT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39443815
doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00907-y
pii: 10.1038/s41391-024-00907-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ashrafi AN, Tafuri A, Cacciamani GE, Park D, de Castro Abreu AL, Gill IS. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: concepts and future directions. Curr Opin Urol. 2018;28:536–43.
pubmed: 30102623
pmcid: 9721528
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000539
Ghoreifi A, Kaneko M, Peretsman S, Iwata A, Brooks J, Shakir A, et al. Patient-reported Satisfaction and Regret Following Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;50:10–6.
pubmed: 37101771
pmcid: 10123415
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.003
Lebastchi AH, Gill IS, Abreu AL. A Focus on Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:881–2.
pubmed: 34319364
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3181
Hopstaken JS, Bomers JGR, Sedelaar MJP, Valerio M, Fütterer JJ, Rovers MM. An Updated Systematic Review on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: What Has Changed over the Past 5 Years? Eur Urol. 2022;81:5–33.
pubmed: 34489140
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.005
Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, et al. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up. J Urol. 2022;208:19–25.
pubmed: 35536148
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002758
Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Carroll PR, Zelefsky MJ, Sartor O, Hricak H, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and modalities. J Urol. 2007;178:2260–7.
pubmed: 17936815
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.072
de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J, Johansen TB, Brausi M, Emberton M, et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol. 2010;24:775–80.
pubmed: 20477543
doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0596
van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H, Bangma CH, Barret E, Crouzet S, et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1078–83.
pubmed: 24444476
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.001
Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S, et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes–a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2015;67:771–7.
pubmed: 25281389
pmcid: 4410301
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018
Tay KJ, Scheltema MJ, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Coleman JA, Dominguez-Escrig J, et al. Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prost Dis. 2017;20:294–9.
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2017.8
van Luijtelaar A, Greenwood BM, Ahmed HU, Barqawi AB, Barret E, Bomers JGR, et al. Focal laser ablation as clinical treatment of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2019;37:2147–53.
pubmed: 30671638
pmcid: 6763411
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02636-7
Borkowetz A, Blana A, Böhmer D, Cash H, Ehrmann U, Franiel T, et al. German S3 Evidence-Based Guidelines on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: The First Evidence-Based Guidelines on Focal Therapy. Urol Int. 2022;106:431–9.
pubmed: 35144260
doi: 10.1159/000521882
Tan WP, Rastinehad AR, Klotz L, Carroll PR, Emberton M, Feller JF, et al. Utilization of focal therapy for patients discontinuing active surveillance of prostate cancer: Recommendations of an international Delphi consensus. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:781.e17–781.
pubmed: 33676851
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.027
Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW, de Bruin DM, Feller J, Futterer JJ, et al. Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2017;35:695–701.
pubmed: 27637908
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1932-1
Marra G, Laguna MP, Walz J, Pavlovich CP, Bianco F, Gregg J, et al. Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations of a Delphi Consensus from the Focal Therapy Society. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022;74:581–9.
pubmed: 33439577
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04160-0
Oishi M, Gill IS, Tafuri A, Shakir A, Cacciamani GE, Iwata T, et al. Hemigland Cryoablation of Localized Low, Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer: Oncologic and Functional Outcomes at 5 Years. J Urol. 2019;202:1188–98.
pubmed: 31347953
pmcid: 9235523
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000456
Abreu AL, Peretsman S, Iwata A, Shakir A, Iwata T, Brooks J, et al. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Hemigland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Initial Outcomes of a United States Series. J Urol. 2020;204:741–7.
pubmed: 32898975
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001126
Eggener SE, Yousuf A, Watson S, Wang S, Oto A. Phase II Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2016;196:1670–5.
pubmed: 27449263
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.074
Lepor H, Llukani E, Sperling D, Fütterer JJ. Complications, Recovery, and Early Functional Outcomes and Oncologic Control Following In-bore Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:924–6.
pubmed: 25979568
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.029
Chao B, Llukani E, Lepor H. Two-year Outcomes Following Focal Laser Ablation of Localized Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1:129–33.
pubmed: 31100236
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.011
Chuang R, Kinnaird A, Kwan L, Sisk A, Barsa D, Felker E, et al. Hemigland Cryoablation of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Intermediate-Term Followup via Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Biopsy. J Urol. 2020;204:941–9.
pubmed: 32985924
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001133
Wysock JS, Becher E, Gogaj R, Velazquez N, Lepor H. Early oncological control following partial gland cryo-ablation: a prospective experience specifying reflex MRI guided biopsy of the ablation zone. Prostate Cancer Prost Dis. 2021;24:114–9.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0244-0
Taneja SS, Bennett J, Coleman J, Grubb R, Andriole G, Reiter RE, et al. Final Results of a Phase I/II Multicenter Trial of WST11 Vascular Targeted Photodynamic Therapy for Hemi-Ablation of the Prostate in Men with Unilateral Low Risk Prostate Cancer Performed in the United States. J Urol. 2016;196:1096–104.
pubmed: 27291652
pmcid: 5483996
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.113
Guillaumier S, Peters M, Arya M, Afzal N, Charman S, Dudderidge T, et al. A Multicentre Study of 5-year Outcomes Following Focal Therapy in Treating Clinically Significant Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;74:422–9.
pubmed: 29960750
pmcid: 6156573
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.006
Shah TT, Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Miah S, Yap T, Faure-Walker NA, et al. Early-Medium-Term Outcomes of Primary Focal Cryotherapy to Treat Nonmetastatic Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer from a Prospective Multicentre Registry. Eur Urol. 2019;76:98–105.
pubmed: 30638633
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.030
Ganzer R, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Koch D, Baumunk D, Kuru T, et al. Prospective Multicenter Phase II Study on Focal Therapy (Hemiablation) of the Prostate with High Intensity Focused Ultrasound. J Urol. 2018;199:983–9.
pubmed: 29107031
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.033
Habashy D, Reddy D, Peters M, Shah TT, van Son M, van Rossum PSN, et al. Evaluation of Outcomes Following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localized Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-Year Experience. J Urol. 2023;210:108–16.
pubmed: 37014172
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003443
de la Rosette J, Dominguez-Escrig J, Zhang K, Teoh J, Barret E, Ramon-Borja JC, et al. A Multicenter, Randomized, Single-blind, 2-Arm Intervention Study Evaluating the Adverse Events and Quality of Life After Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Localized Low-intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2023;209:347–53.
pubmed: 36441776
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003051
Gill IS, Azzouzi AR, Emberton M, Coleman JA, Coeytaux E, Scherz A, et al. Randomized Trial of Partial Gland Ablation with Vascular Targeted Phototherapy versus Active Surveillance for Low Risk Prostate Cancer: Extended Followup and Analyses of Effectiveness. J Urol. 2018;200:786–93.
pubmed: 29864437
pmcid: 6786489
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.121
Gravas S, Tzortzis V, de la Riva SIM, Laguna P, de la Rosette J. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: patient selection and evaluation. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12:77–86.
pubmed: 22149434
doi: 10.1586/era.11.144
Muller BG, Fütterer JJ, Gupta RT, Katz A, Kirkham A, Kurhanewicz J, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel. BJU Int. 2014;113:218–27.
pubmed: 24215670
doi: 10.1111/bju.12243
Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA, Crane S, Emberton M, Goldenberg L, et al. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109:1636–47.
pubmed: 22077593
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10633.x
Drost FJH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD012663.
pubmed: 31022301
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N. Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.
pubmed: 29552975
pmcid: 9084630
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Manfredi C, Fernández-Pascual E, Arcaniolo D, Emberton M, Sanchez-Salas R, Artigas Guix C, et al. The Role of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Primary and Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:942–57.
pubmed: 34538633
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.08.013
Zattoni F, Rajwa P, Miszczyk M, Fazekas T, Carletti F, Carrozza S, et al. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;1;S2588-9311(24)00182-2.
Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SAR, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144:1784–91.
pubmed: 26645476
doi: 10.1017/S0950268815002885
Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Cohen AJ, et al. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial. Eur Urol. 2024;86:61–8.
pubmed: 38212178
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.12.015
Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, Kaufman RP, Bernstein A, Avulova S, et al. Complications Following Transrectal and Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: Results of the ProBE-PC Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2024;211:205–13.
pubmed: 37976319
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003788
Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, Kaufman RP, Bernstein A, Fisher HAG. Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Following Transrectal and Transperineal Biopsy: Results of the Prostate Biopsy Efficacy and Complications Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2024;212:21–31.
pubmed: 38700844
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003979
Ploussard G, Barret E, Fiard G, Lenfant L, Malavaud B, Giannarini G, et al. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1). Eur Urol Oncol. 2024 Feb 24;S2588-9311(24)00049-X.
Huber PM, Afzal N, Arya M, Boxler S, Dudderidge T, Emberton M, et al. Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions. World J Urol. 2021;39:1115–9.
pubmed: 32638084
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03297-7
Morgan TM, Boorjian SA, Buyyounouski MK, Chapin BF, Chen DYT, Cheng HH, et al. Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions. J Urol. 2024;211:526–32.
pubmed: 38421252
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003890
Crouzet S, Blana A, Murat FJ, Pasticier G, Brown SCW, Conti GN, et al. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after failed radiation therapy: Multi-institutional analysis of 418 patients. BJU Int. 2017;119:896–904.
pubmed: 28063191
doi: 10.1111/bju.13766
Hostiou T, Gelet A, Chapelon JY, Rouvière O, Mège-Lechevalier F, Lafon C, et al. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound for locally recurrent prostate cancer after low-dose-rate brachytherapy: oncological and functional outcomes. BJU Int. 2019;124:746–57.
pubmed: 31148367
doi: 10.1111/bju.14838
Li YH, Elshafei A, Agarwal G, Ruckle H, Powsang J, Jones JS. Salvage focal prostate cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. Prostate. 2015;75:1–7.
pubmed: 25283814
doi: 10.1002/pros.22881
Lebastchi AH, George AK, Polascik TJ, Coleman J, de la Rosette J, Turkbey B, et al. Standardized Nomenclature and Surveillance Methodologies After Focal Therapy and Partial Gland Ablation for Localized Prostate Cancer: An International Multidisciplinary Consensus. Eur Urol. 2020;78:371–8.
pubmed: 32532513
pmcid: 8966411
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.018
Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D, Bitting R, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw JNCCN. 2022;20:1288–98.
pubmed: 36509074
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N. Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–24.
pubmed: 27626136
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
Bryant RJ, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Robinson MC, Kumar R, Marsden L, et al. Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv095.
pubmed: 25863334
pmcid: 4554254
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv095
Kawada T, Shim SR, Quhal F, Rajwa P, Pradere B, Yanagisawa T, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Liquid Biomarkers for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis of Multiple Thresholds. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;17:S2588-9311(23)00248-1.
Na R, Zheng SL, Han M, Yu H, Jiang D, Shah S, et al. Germline Mutations in ATM and BRCA1/2 Distinguish Risk for Lethal and Indolent Prostate Cancer and are Associated with Early Age at Death. Eur Urol. 2017;71:740–7.
pubmed: 27989354
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.033
Carter HB, Helfand B, Mamawala M, Wu Y, Landis P, Yu H, et al. Germline Mutations in ATM and BRCA1/2 Are Associated with Grade Reclassification in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;75:743–9.
pubmed: 30309687
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.021
Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, Reid JE, Djalilvand A, Bhatnagar S, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1428–34.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.4396
Shore ND, Kella N, Moran B, Boczko J, Bianco FJ, Crawford ED, et al. Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:612–8.
pubmed: 26403586
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.09.072
Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Simko JP, Falzarano SM, Maddala T, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014;66:550–60.
pubmed: 24836057
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.004
Van Den Eeden SK, Lu R, Zhang N, Quesenberry CP, Shan J, Han JS, et al. A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score as a Predictor of Metastases and Prostate Cancer Death in Surgically Treated Men with Clinically Localized Disease. Eur Urol. 2018;73:129–38.
pubmed: 28988753
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.013
Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, Zhang N, Tsiatis AC, Moncur J, et al. A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Predicts Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy and Adverse Surgical Pathology in a Racially Diverse Population of Men with Clinically Low- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:123–31.
pubmed: 25465337
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.030
Kim HL, Li P, Huang HC, Deheshi S, Marti T, Knudsen B, et al. Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prost Dis. 2019;22:399–405.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-018-0101-6
Herlemann A, Huang HC, Alam R, Tosoian JJ, Kim HL, Klein EA, et al. Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:136–43.
pubmed: 31455846
doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0167-9
Karnes RJ, Choeurng V, Ross AE, Schaeffer EM, Klein EA, Freedland SJ, et al. Validation of a Genomic Risk Classifier to Predict Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality in Men with Adverse Pathologic Features. Eur Urol. 2018;73:168–75.
pubmed: 28400167
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.036
Spratt DE, Zhang J, Santiago-Jiménez M, Dess RT, Davis JW, Den RB, et al. Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2018;36:581–90.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.2940