1
|
Molano-Franco D, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Muriel A, Del Campo-Albendea L, Fernández-García S, Alvarez-Méndez A, Simancas-Racines D, Viteri A, Sanchez G, Fernandez-Felix B, Lopez-Alcalde J, Solà I, Osorio D, Khan KS, Nuvials X, Ferrer R, Zamora J. Basal procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and presepsin for prediction of mortality in critically ill septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagn Progn Res 2023; 7:15. [PMID: 37537680 PMCID: PMC10399020 DOI: 10.1186/s41512-023-00152-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2022] [Accepted: 07/13/2023] [Indexed: 08/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous biomarkers have been proposed for diagnosis, therapeutic, and prognosis in sepsis. Previous evaluations of the value of biomarkers for predicting mortality due to this life-threatening condition fail to address the complexity of this condition and the risk of bias associated with prognostic studies. We evaluate the predictive performance of four of these biomarkers in the prognosis of mortality through a methodologically sound evaluation. METHODS We conducted a systematic review a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine, in critically ill adults with sepsis, whether procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and presepsin (sCD14) are independent prognostic factors for mortality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2023. Only Phase-2 confirmatory prognostic factor studies among critically ill septic adults were included. Random effects meta-analyses pooled the prognostic association estimates. RESULTS We included 60 studies (15,681 patients) with 99 biomarker assessments. Quality of the statistical analysis and reporting domains using the QUIPS tool showed high risk of bias in > 60% assessments. The biomarker measurement as a continuous variable in models adjusted by key covariates (age and severity score) for predicting mortality at 28-30 days showed a null or near to null association for basal PCT (pooled OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-1.003), CRP (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.17), and IL-6 (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03) and sCD14 (pooled HR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.000 to 1.006). Additional meta-analyses accounting for other prognostic covariates had similarly null findings. CONCLUSION Baseline, isolated measurement of PCT, CRP, IL-6, and sCD14 has not been shown to help predict mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis. The role of these biomarkers should be evaluated in new studies where the patient selection would be standardized and the measurement of biomarker results. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD42019128790).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Molano-Franco
- Hospital San José, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud (FUCS), CIMCA Research Group, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
| | - Alfonso Muriel
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
- Nursing and Physiotherapy Department, University of Alcala, Madrid, Spain
| | - Laura Del Campo-Albendea
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Silvia Fernández-García
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ana Alvarez-Méndez
- Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Daniel Simancas-Racines
- Centro de investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC) Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud "Eugenio Espejo", Universidad UTE, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Andres Viteri
- Centro de investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC) Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud "Eugenio Espejo", Universidad UTE, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Guillermo Sanchez
- Hospital Universitario Mayor-Méderi; Universidad del Rosario, Bogota, Colombia
| | - Borja Fernandez-Felix
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Jesus Lopez-Alcalde
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
- Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Pozuelo de Alarcon, Spain
- Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ivan Solà
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, IIB SANT PAU, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Dimelza Osorio
- Health Services Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Khalid Saeed Khan
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Granada, Spain
| | - Xavier Nuvials
- Critical Care Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Shock Organ Dysfunction and Resuscitation Research Group (SODIR), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ricard Ferrer
- Critical Care Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Shock Organ Dysfunction and Resuscitation Research Group (SODIR), Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Javier Zamora
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Aldin A, Umlauff L, Estcourt LJ, Collins G, Moons KG, Engert A, Kobe C, von Tresckow B, Haque M, Foroutan F, Kreuzberger N, Trivella M, Skoetz N. Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD012643. [PMID: 31930780 PMCID: PMC6984446 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012643.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is one of the most common haematological malignancies in young adults and, with cure rates of 90%, has become curable for the majority of individuals. Positron emission tomography (PET) is an imaging tool used to monitor a tumour's metabolic activity, stage and progression. Interim PET during chemotherapy has been posited as a prognostic factor in individuals with HL to distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis. This distinction is important to inform decision-making on the clinical pathway of individuals with HL. OBJECTIVES To determine whether in previously untreated adults with HL receiving first-line therapy, interim PET scan results can distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis, and thereby predict survival outcomes in each group. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and conference proceedings up until April 2019. We also searched one trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA We included retrospective and prospective studies evaluating interim PET scans in a minimum of 10 individuals with HL (all stages) undergoing first-line therapy. Interim PET was defined as conducted during therapy (after one, two, three or four treatment cycles). The minimum follow-up period was at least 12 months. We excluded studies if the trial design allowed treatment modification based on the interim PET scan results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We developed a data extraction form according to the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Two teams of two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and PET-associated adverse events (AEs), assessed risk of bias (per outcome) according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). We contacted investigators to obtain missing information and data. MAIN RESULTS Our literature search yielded 11,277 results. In total, we included 23 studies (99 references) with 7335 newly-diagnosed individuals with classic HL (all stages). Participants in 16 studies underwent (interim) PET combined with computed tomography (PET-CT), compared to PET only in the remaining seven studies. The standard chemotherapy regimen included ABVD (16) studies, compared to BEACOPP or other regimens (seven studies). Most studies (N = 21) conducted interim PET scans after two cycles (PET2) of chemotherapy, although PET1, PET3 and PET4 were also reported in some studies. In the meta-analyses, we used PET2 data if available as we wanted to ensure homogeneity between studies. In most studies interim PET scan results were evaluated according to the Deauville 5-point scale (N = 12). Eight studies were not included in meta-analyses due to missing information and/or data; results were reported narratively. For the remaining studies, we pooled the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR). The timing of the outcome measurement was after two or three years (the median follow-up time ranged from 22 to 65 months) in the pooled studies. Eight studies explored the independent prognostic ability of interim PET by adjusting for other established prognostic factors (e.g. disease stage, B symptoms). We did not pool the results because the multivariable analyses adjusted for a different set of factors in each study. Overall survival Twelve (out of 23) studies reported OS. Six of these were assessed as low risk of bias in all of the first four domains of QUIPS (study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement and outcome measurement). The other six studies were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of these four domains. Four studies were assessed as low risk, and eight studies as high risk of bias for the domain other prognostic factors (covariates). Nine studies were assessed as low risk, and three studies as high risk of bias for the domain 'statistical analysis and reporting'. We pooled nine studies with 1802 participants. Participants with HL who have a negative interim PET scan result probably have a large advantage in OS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result (unadjusted HR 5.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.64 to 9.81, I² = 44%, moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute values, this means that 900 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result will probably survive longer than three years compared to 585 (95% CI 356 to 757) out of 1000 participants with a positive result. Adjusted results from two studies also indicate an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (moderate-certainty evidence). Progression-free survival Twenty-one studies reported PFS. Eleven out of 21 were assessed as low risk of bias in the first four domains. The remaining were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of the four domains. Eleven studies were assessed as low risk, and ten studies as high risk of bias for the domain other prognostic factors (covariates). Eight studies were assessed as high risk, thirteen as low risk of bias for statistical analysis and reporting. We pooled 14 studies with 2079 participants. Participants who have a negative interim PET scan result may have an advantage in PFS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result, but the evidence is very uncertain (unadjusted HR 4.90, 95% CI 3.47 to 6.90, I² = 45%, very low-certainty evidence). This means that 850 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result may be progression-free longer than three years compared to 451 (95% CI 326 to 569) out of 1000 participants with a positive result. Adjusted results (not pooled) from eight studies also indicate that there may be an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (low-certainty evidence). PET-associated adverse events No study measured PET-associated AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review provides moderate-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict OS, and very low-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict progression-free survival in treated individuals with HL. This evidence is primarily based on unadjusted data. More studies are needed to test the adjusted prognostic ability of interim PET against established prognostic factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Aldin
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Lisa Umlauff
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, Level 2, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 9BQ
| | - Gary Collins
- University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Windmill Road, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LD
| | - Karel Gm Moons
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3508 GA
| | - Andreas Engert
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50924
| | - Carsten Kobe
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department for Nuclear Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Bastian von Tresckow
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50924
| | - Madhuri Haque
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Farid Foroutan
- McMaster University, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L8
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Marialena Trivella
- University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Windmill Road, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LD
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Cancer, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Aldin A, Umlauff L, Estcourt LJ, Collins G, Moons KGM, Engert A, Kobe C, von Tresckow B, Haque M, Foroutan F, Kreuzberger N, Trivella M, Skoetz N. Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD012643. [PMID: 31525824 PMCID: PMC6746624 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012643.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is one of the most common haematological malignancies in young adults and, with cure rates of 90%, has become curable for the majority of individuals. Positron emission tomography (PET) is an imaging tool used to monitor a tumour's metabolic activity, stage and progression. Interim PET during chemotherapy has been posited as a prognostic factor in individuals with HL to distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis. This distinction is important to inform decision-making on the clinical pathway of individuals with HL. OBJECTIVES To determine whether in previously untreated adults with HL receiving first-line therapy, interim PET scan results can distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis, and thereby predict survival outcomes in each group. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and conference proceedings up until April 2019. We also searched one trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA We included retrospective and prospective studies evaluating interim PET scans in a minimum of 10 individuals with HL (all stages) undergoing first-line therapy. Interim PET was defined as conducted during therapy (after one, two, three or four treatment cycles). The minimum follow-up period was at least 12 months. We excluded studies if the trial design allowed treatment modification based on the interim PET scan results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We developed a data extraction form according to the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Two teams of two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and PET-associated adverse events (AEs), assessed risk of bias (per outcome) according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). We contacted investigators to obtain missing information and data. MAIN RESULTS Our literature search yielded 11,277 results. In total, we included 23 studies (99 references) with 7335 newly-diagnosed individuals with classic HL (all stages).Participants in 16 studies underwent (interim) PET combined with computed tomography (PET-CT), compared to PET only in the remaining seven studies. The standard chemotherapy regimen included ABVD (16) studies, compared to BEACOPP or other regimens (seven studies). Most studies (N = 21) conducted interim PET scans after two cycles (PET2) of chemotherapy, although PET1, PET3 and PET4 were also reported in some studies. In the meta-analyses, we used PET2 data if available as we wanted to ensure homogeneity between studies. In most studies interim PET scan results were evaluated according to the Deauville 5-point scale (N = 12).Eight studies were not included in meta-analyses due to missing information and/or data; results were reported narratively. For the remaining studies, we pooled the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR). The timing of the outcome measurement was after two or three years (the median follow-up time ranged from 22 to 65 months) in the pooled studies.Eight studies explored the independent prognostic ability of interim PET by adjusting for other established prognostic factors (e.g. disease stage, B symptoms). We did not pool the results because the multivariable analyses adjusted for a different set of factors in each study.Overall survivalTwelve (out of 23) studies reported OS. Six of these were assessed as low risk of bias in all of the first four domains of QUIPS (study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement and outcome measurement). The other six studies were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of these four domains. Nine studies were assessed as high risk, and three studies as moderate risk of bias for the domain study confounding. Eight studies were assessed as low risk, and four studies as high risk of bias for the domain statistical analysis and reporting.We pooled nine studies with 1802 participants. Participants with HL who have a negative interim PET scan result probably have a large advantage in OS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result (unadjusted HR 5.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.64 to 9.81, I² = 44%, moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute values, this means that 900 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result will probably survive longer than three years compared to 585 (95% CI 356 to 757) out of 1000 participants with a positive result.Adjusted results from two studies also indicate an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (moderate-certainty evidence).Progression-free survival Twenty-one studies reported PFS. Eleven out of 21 were assessed as low risk of bias in the first four domains. The remaining were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of the four domains. Eleven studies were assessed as high risk, nine studies as moderate risk and one study as low risk of bias for study confounding. Eight studies were assessed as high risk, three as moderate risk and nine as low risk of bias for statistical analysis and reporting.We pooled 14 studies with 2079 participants. Participants who have a negative interim PET scan result may have an advantage in PFS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result, but the evidence is very uncertain (unadjusted HR 4.90, 95% CI 3.47 to 6.90, I² = 45%, very low-certainty evidence). This means that 850 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result may be progression-free longer than three years compared to 451 (95% CI 326 to 569) out of 1000 participants with a positive result.Adjusted results (not pooled) from eight studies also indicate that there may be an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (low-certainty evidence).PET-associated adverse eventsNo study measured PET-associated AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review provides moderate-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict OS, and very low-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict progression-free survival in treated individuals with HL. This evidence is primarily based on unadjusted data. More studies are needed to test the adjusted prognostic ability of interim PET against established prognostic factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Aldin
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Lisa Umlauff
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- NHS Blood and TransplantHaematology/Transfusion MedicineLevel 2, John Radcliffe HospitalHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Gary Collins
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesWindmill RoadOxfordUKOX3 7LD
| | - Karel GM Moons
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary CarePO Box 85500UtrechtNetherlands3508 GA
| | - Andreas Engert
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne DuesseldorfUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50924
| | - Carsten Kobe
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department for Nuclear MedicineUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
| | - Bastian von Tresckow
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne DuesseldorfUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50924
| | - Madhuri Haque
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Farid Foroutan
- McMaster UniversityDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact1280 Main St WHamiltonCanadaL8S 4L8
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Marialena Trivella
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesWindmill RoadOxfordUKOX3 7LD
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane CancerUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| |
Collapse
|