ライフサイエンスコーパス: extrahepatic disease

1 number of liver metastases, and preoperative extrahepatic disease.

2 rwent more major hepatectomies, but had less extrahepatic disease.

3 e than 3 liver metastases, R1 resection, and extrahepatic disease.

4 had 4 or more CRLM, and 22.5% had associated extrahepatic disease.

5 3 months to evaluate for tumor response and extrahepatic disease.

6 lly appraise key studies on NAFLD-associated extrahepatic disease.

7 evaluation because of accurate assessment of extrahepatic disease.

8 for patients with resectable tumors without extrahepatic disease.

9 tients with liver metastases and concomitant extrahepatic disease.

10 ted for resection of hepatic metastases with extrahepatic disease.

11 ly absolute contraindication to resection is extrahepatic disease.

12 h 4 having intrahepatic disease and 7 having extrahepatic disease.

13 for 6 months on neoadjuvant therapy with no extrahepatic disease.

14 ) for hepatic diseases; 1.35 (1.15-1.57) for extrahepatic diseases; 1.50 (1.10-2.03) for circulatory

15 e (2.4), tumor burden (2.8), and presence of extrahepatic disease (3.5).

16 ighly selected patients with single sites of extrahepatic disease, although expectations should be di

17 Patients with extrahepatic disease and positive lymph node primary tum

18 correlated with the severity of hepatic and extrahepatic disease and systemic inflammatory responses

19 ete resection in high-volume centers without extrahepatic disease and with follow-up >1 year were inc

20 performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and alpha-fetoprotein level to bes

21 or B, ECOG performance status of 0 to 2, no extrahepatic disease, and no prior radiation received 15

22 or and metastases, CRLM number and diameter, extrahepatic disease, and preoperative chemotherapy.

23 olization, hepatic tumor burden, presence of extrahepatic disease, and sex.

24 astases identified patients with concomitant extrahepatic disease as a group with poor outcomes.

25 onous presentation, primary node status, and extrahepatic disease as matching variables to compare ov

26 rred in all eight of the 17 patients who had extrahepatic disease at pretherapy CT and in four of the

27 isease (range, 0 to 5 regimens), and 45% had extrahepatic disease at study entry.

28 iteria required that all patients be free of extrahepatic disease based on computed tomography scans

29 ereas positive surgical margins and resected extrahepatic disease determined prognosis thereafter.

30 variables (ie, surgical margin and resected extrahepatic disease) determined prognosis thereafter (d

31 Despite classic teaching, extrahepatic disease did not adversely affect survival.

32 The presence of extrahepatic disease did not affect survival.

33 Limited amounts of extrahepatic disease do not appear to affect survival ad

34 (P = .003), high modified CRS (P = .02), and extrahepatic disease (EHD) (P < .001).

35 progression: locally advanced disease (LAD), extrahepatic disease (EHD), and macrovascular invasion (

36 ectal liver metastases (CRLM) and concurrent extrahepatic disease (EHD), and to define prognostic fac

37 d with cTSH, fTSH patients had more frequent extrahepatic disease (EHD), larger CRLM, more frequent m

38 year, recurrence-free, liver-tumor-free, and extrahepatic disease-free survival was >=86%, >=50%, >=5

39 Patients with CLM without extrahepatic disease from the GALAXY study (UMIN00003920

40 eater than 200 ng/mL, multiple liver tumors, extrahepatic disease, large tumors, or positive resectio

41 Extrahepatic disease localization is reconfirmed not to

42 -related risk prediction between hepatic and extrahepatic disease might need to be accounted for in t

43 tion contraindications included unresectable extrahepatic disease, more than 70% liver involvement, l

44 iology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion.

45 s performed at the time of laparotomy unless extrahepatic disease or unresectable hepatic tumors were

46 riate analysis: positive margin (p = 0.004), extrahepatic disease (p = 0.003), node-positive primary

47 Presence of extrahepatic disease (P=0.34) or type of pre/postoperati

48 d KRAS mutations, R1 margin status, resected extrahepatic disease, patient age, primary tumor lymph n

49 Twenty-three percent had extrahepatic disease preoperatively.

50 l decrease the incidence of both hepatic and extrahepatic disease progression.

51 al evaluation, but their utility in treating extrahepatic diseases remains limited, demanding continu

52 These studies concluded that the presence of extrahepatic disease should be a contraindication to res

53 s had higher mortality from both hepatic and extrahepatic diseases, showing multivariate-adjusted haz

54 AFLD may be a new, and added risk factor for extrahepatic diseases such as CVD, chronic kidney diseas

55 al after resection is worse in patients with extrahepatic disease than in patients with liver-only di

56 nificantly higher mortality from hepatic and extrahepatic diseases than anti-HCV seropositives with u

57 erapy [n = 1], lack of regeneration [n = 2], extrahepatic disease undetected prior to PVE [n = 7]).

58 Extrahepatic disease was present at time of LT in 4 (19%

59 lar thrombosis (TVT) was present in 55%, and extrahepatic disease was present in 12%.

60 al less than 12 months, multiple tumors, and extrahepatic disease were independent predictors of poor

61 , absence of postoperative chemotherapy, and extrahepatic disease were predictive of recurrence (HR=2

62 h unresectable liver metastases and no known extrahepatic disease were treated concurrently with intr

63 nvasion (HR = 2.2; P = 0.03), but not pre-LT extrahepatic disease, were significant risk factors for