戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 eceived radiation therapy: 11 focal and four craniospinal.
2 (RT) was prescribed, either focal (54 Gy) or craniospinal (36 Gy, plus primary boost), depending on a
3 compartment syndrome, complicated pneumonia, craniospinal abscess, deep neck infection, ectopic pregn
4                                              Craniospinal and focal RT subgroups were also examined.
5 x (relative risk [RR] 1.8), radiation to the craniospinal axis (RR 1.6), and relapse of primary disea
6 ed dose was determined to be 25 mg and rapid craniospinal axis distribution was demonstrated.
7 mportance: Postoperative radiotherapy to the craniospinal axis is standard-of-care for pediatric medu
8  propensity to involve any region within the craniospinal axis.
9  a tendency to involve any region within the craniospinal axis.
10 e tumors that can develop anywhere along the craniospinal axis.
11                                   Because of craniospinal disease involvement, staging and treatment
12                                              Craniospinal doses ranged from 23.4 to 39.6 Gy, and tota
13 t of chemotherapy (yes vs no) and receipt of craniospinal irradiation (<30 Gy or >30 Gy vs no cranios
14                            Two of 3 received craniospinal irradiation (2,560/3,840 cGy) and (3,520/5,
15               Ninety-seven patients received craniospinal irradiation (23.4 Gy) followed by 55.8 Gy t
16                                              Craniospinal irradiation (24 Gy cranial/15 Gy spinal) wa
17 hosphamide (one to three cycles) followed by craniospinal irradiation (25.2 to 36 Gy) and a boost to
18 otocol, which included surgery, risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation (average risk, n = 186; high ri
19         To compare quality of survival after craniospinal irradiation (CSI) alone with survival after
20 l study examined the effects of risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation (CSI) dose and the interactions
21 e these effects include deintensification of craniospinal irradiation (CSI) dose and volume.
22                                              Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) has long been a cornersto
23  (RT) in 57 (30%), local RT in 87 (45%), and craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in 49 (25%).
24 BIS4 trial aimed to avoid highly detrimental craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in children < 4 years of
25                                              Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) is a vital therapeutic ap
26 y and TrueBeam c-arm linear accelerators for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) of the neuro-axis.
27 ed the effect of treatment with reduced-dose craniospinal irradiation (CSI) plus a tumor bed boost ve
28 lloblastoma (iMB) is usually treated without craniospinal irradiation (CSI) to avoid neurocognitive l
29  I trial of temozolomide stratified by prior craniospinal irradiation (CSI).
30  were treated with postsurgical risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation (n = 36 high risk [HR]; n = 90
31                     We tested whether proton craniospinal irradiation (pCSI) encompassing the entire
32 ment exposure, including historical therapy (craniospinal irradiation [CSI] >= 30 Gy, no chemotherapy
33                                              Craniospinal irradiation and chemotherapy were negativel
34  aged 3-16 years in patients (n=215) who had craniospinal irradiation and had been treated with a cur
35 ell-based therapies, immunotherapies, proton craniospinal irradiation and ongoing clinical trials off
36 NS relapse, treatment that delays definitive craniospinal irradiation by 6 months to allow for more i
37 % male), age at diagnosis (mean, 8.6 years), craniospinal irradiation dose (median, 23.4 Gy), length
38                                   The median craniospinal irradiation dose was 23.4 GyRBE (IQR 23.4-2
39 olling for age at diagnosis and risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation dose, performance on the follow
40 em-cell support after surgical resection and craniospinal irradiation is feasible in newly diagnosed
41                                 Patients had craniospinal irradiation of 18-36 Gy radiobiological equ
42 y with or without second-look surgery before craniospinal irradiation on response rates and survival
43 d 54 Gy tumor-bed boost, compared with 36 Gy craniospinal irradiation plus 54 Gy tumor-bed boost used
44 ry 4 weeks, after completion of risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation to children with newly diagnose
45                     In multivariable models, craniospinal irradiation was associated with a 1.5- to t
46 matter (NWM) related to their treatment with craniospinal irradiation with or without chemotherapy, a
47 treatment groups (no CRT, focal irradiation, craniospinal irradiation) using the chi(2) test.
48 iospinal irradiation (<30 Gy or >30 Gy vs no craniospinal irradiation).
49          Fourteen patients were treated with craniospinal irradiation, and 11 were treated with local
50 patients consisted of surgical resection and craniospinal irradiation, followed by the same chemother
51 thirty survivors, 81.3% of whom had received craniospinal irradiation, were matched with 1,150 contro
52 ous peripheral blood stem-cell rescue before craniospinal irradiation.
53  patients in ACNS0122 who received full-dose craniospinal irradiation.
54  consequence of chemotherapy or prophylactic craniospinal irradiation.
55 ed after 12 cycles of chemotherapy and local craniospinal irradiation.
56  with pediatric medulloblastoma treated with craniospinal PRT versus XRT.
57 nts with CR1 of less than 18 months received craniospinal radiation (24 Gy cranial/15 Gy spinal), whe
58  with a trend for improvement when full-dose craniospinal radiation (36 to 39.6 Gy) was used compared
59 nondisseminated MB treated with reduced-dose craniospinal radiation and chemotherapy.
60 ere treated with postoperative, reduced-dose craniospinal radiation therapy (23.4 Gy) and 55.8 Gy of
61 ring carboplatin as a radiosensitizer during craniospinal radiation therapy (CSRT) to patients with h
62        The results suggest that reduced-dose craniospinal radiation therapy and adjuvant chemotherapy
63 ecan in a 6-week phase II window followed by craniospinal radiation therapy and four cycles of high-d
64    Patients were randomized to receive 36-Gy craniospinal radiation therapy and weekly vincristine wi
65 tients who did or did not receive cranial or craniospinal radiation therapy during initial treatment.
66 easing evidence indicates that the amount of craniospinal radiation therapy required for diseases con
67 sive treatment protocols, combining surgery, craniospinal radiation, and high-dose chemotherapy, that
68 aged 3 years or older received postoperative craniospinal radiation.
69 ministering intensive therapy before delayed craniospinal radiation.
70           All patients received risk-adapted craniospinal radiotherapy (23.4 Gy for average-risk dise
71 ave required surgical resection and focal or craniospinal radiotherapy (irradiation of the entire sub
72 treatment is emerging that uses reduced-dose craniospinal radiotherapy followed by platinum-based che
73              We challenge the consensus that craniospinal radiotherapy is the best treatment for loca
74 sseminated medulloblastoma with reduced-dose craniospinal radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy.
75                                              Craniospinal radiotherapy plus boost is perceived to be
76 olume radiotherapy plus boost should replace craniospinal radiotherapy when a radiotherapy-only appro
77 emotherapy, dose-escalated hyperfractionated craniospinal radiotherapy, and maintenance chemotherapy.
78 erns of disease relapse and cure rates after craniospinal radiotherapy, reduced-volume irradiation al
79 plus boost was 7.6% compared with 3.8% after craniospinal radiotherapy, with no predilection for isol
80 es intensive systemic therapy and cranial or craniospinal RT along with IT therapy and consideration
81                                          The craniospinal RT dose was 23.4 Gy for average-risk patien
82     All had been treated with a reduced-dose craniospinal RT regimen (23.4 Gy to the neuraxis, 32.4-G
83 sive were randomly assigned to receive 35 Gy craniospinal RT with a 20 Gy posterior fossa boost, or c
84                                       In the craniospinal subgroup, IQ remained stable in both the PB