ライフサイエンスコーパス: localized prostate cancer

1 posed as management strategies for low-risk, localized prostate cancer.

2 ical prostatectomy among men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

3 ificantly overexpressed in metastatic versus localized prostate cancer.

4 her AS is an appropriate option for men with localized prostate cancer.

5 ll as the benefits and harms of treatment of localized prostate cancer.

6 downregulated in clinical metastatic versus localized prostate cancer.

7 ar after primary or salvage radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

8 gression among men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

9 n, among 1,455 men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

10 n treatments compared with no treatments for localized prostate cancer.

11 ith other competing therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer.

12 e of robotics in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

13 followed by alendronate therapy in men with localized prostate cancer.

14 management strategy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

15 ty providing excellent control of clinically localized prostate cancer.

16 counseling patients regarding treatment for localized prostate cancer.

17 ominate as the main treatment approaches for localized prostate cancer.

18 e option in future treatment of early-stage, localized prostate cancer.

19 reatment in elderly men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.

20 while offering treatment options to men with localized prostate cancer.

21 conservative management for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

22 ic antigen level) in high-risk patients with localized prostate cancer.

23 of care at many centers for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

24 ceptor Trop2 are predictive of recurrence of localized prostate cancer.

25 had considerable impact on the management of localized prostate cancer.

26 t ADT in prostatectomy samples from men with localized prostate cancer.

27 asive surgical option to their patients with localized prostate cancer.

28 ly equivalent across standard treatments for localized prostate cancer.

29 n increase in the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer.

30 ve management strategies in elderly men with localized prostate cancer.

31 treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer.

32 intained a cardinal role in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

33 iagnosis among men with aggressively treated localized prostate cancer.

34 agement as an option for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

35 f lung cancer to 98% for 3,325 patients with localized prostate cancer.

36 urvival benefit for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

37 considering radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

38 ct of radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer.

39 radiation are the most common treatments for localized prostate cancer.

40 ostic indicators in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

41 381 patients who underwent RT for clinically localized prostate cancer.

42 Radiation is an effective means of treating localized prostate cancer.

43 node positivity in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

44 06 as a neoadjuvant agent with radiation for localized prostate cancer.

45 ct metastatic disease in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

46 had been initially diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

47 outcome after external-beam radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer.

48 and overall survival in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

49 obtained as part of the routine work-up for localized prostate cancer.

50 t pathological stage for a group of men with localized prostate cancer.

51 with early-stage cancer, including men with localized prostate cancer.

52 ne expression in prostate tissue of men with localized prostate cancer.

53 ns was an independent, prognostic factor for localized prostate cancer.

54 effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer.

55 and 2020 receiving definitive radiation for localized prostate cancer.

56 rities for Black patients receiving EBRT for localized prostate cancer.

57 e of MRI-transrectal US fusion-guided IRE of localized prostate cancer.

58 genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics in localized prostate cancer.

59 th outcomes for men with locally advanced vs localized prostate cancer.

60 year all-cause mortality compared to ORP for localized prostate cancer.

61 nts diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.

62 decision regret among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer.

63 t a variety of solid human tumors, including localized prostate cancer.

64 e incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer.

65 he prediction of noncancer death in men with localized prostate cancer.

66 nsity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer.

67 radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

68 otherapy (RT) for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer.

69 tly higher than the incidence among men with localized prostate cancer.

70 cal therapy a viable option for treatment of localized prostate cancer.

71 nefit from PADT for most men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

72 All men were newly diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer.

73 ly in CRPC and not benign prostate tissue or localized prostate cancer.

74 serum and tissue biomarkers in patients with localized prostate cancer.

75 radical treatment when first diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.

76 total cholesterol, and apoptosis in men with localized prostate cancer.

77 patient) and 11 treatment-naive, high-grade localized prostate cancers.

78 etabolomics data comparing metastatic versus localized prostate cancers.

79 atural history of PSA-detected, nonpalpable, localized prostate cancer?

80 ssion was detected in benign prostate (83%), localized prostate cancer (100%), and lymph node metasta

81 ns (median [IQR] age, 65 [60-71] years) with localized prostate cancer, 750 (0.5%) were American Indi

82 juvant ADT for locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer, a BMD test followed by select

83 ive primary androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer, a setting in which the benefi

84 patients with low-risk (Gleason score </= 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the re

85 Although existing biomarkers may detect localized prostate cancer, additional strategies are nec

86 adiation therapy is an effective therapy for localized prostate cancer, although failures occur at hi

87 ng, radiotherapy, and surgical management of localized prostate cancer among men with low-, intermedi

88 ilized as a prognostic tool in patients with localized prostate cancer and at the time of serologic r

89 tic prostate cancer compared with clinically localized prostate cancer and benign prostate tissue.

90 (OS) in men with intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer and can accelerate the evaluat

91 147 (3.4%) prostate cancers (both untreated localized prostate cancer and CRPC), and showed that mut

92 cal control is paramount, such as recurrent, localized prostate cancer and malignant gliomas.

93 radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer and may be useful in counselin

94 e to distinguish benign prostate, clinically localized prostate cancer and metastatic disease.

95 we review the pathologic characteristics of localized prostate cancer and methods to identify patien

96 107 men with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer and negative conventional imag

97 All men were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and received no surgery or rad

98 tissue levels from benign prostate tissue to localized prostate cancer and subsequently metastatic di

99 estimate the threat posed by newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer and the threat posed by compet

100 tality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated wit

101 -1 expression was significantly increased in localized prostate cancer and was present in most prosta

102 Importantly, 38% of clinically localized prostate cancers and 27% of metastatic prostat

103 be of uncertain benefit (primary therapy for localized prostate cancer), and in a subgroup in which u

104 ved a PSA test; 2664 received a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, and 1643 agreed to undergo ra

105 iles of normal adjacent prostate (NAP), BPH, localized prostate cancer, and metastatic, hormone-refra

106 ty furthermore distinguishes metastatic from localized prostate cancer, and pathway manipulation can

107 may provide useful prognostic information in localized prostate cancer, and they need to be validated

108 Several options exist for the treatment of localized prostate cancer, and this review discusses the

109 was found that m-calpain was up-regulated in localized prostate cancer, and to an even higher degree

110 t noncoding genome, uncovered novel genes in localized prostate cancer, and will foster the developme

111 e, and PSA level, one-third of patients with localized prostate cancer are appropriate for active sur

112 The majority of men treated for localized prostate cancer are cured of their disease.

113 measures comparing treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are lacking.

114 entions and to help determine which men with localized prostate cancer are most likely to benefit fro

115 at may inform on the metastatic potential of localized prostate cancer are urgently needed.

116 Localized prostate cancers are genetically variable and

117 n for patients with low-to-intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer as defined in this trial.

118 ving patients who underwent RALP and ORP for localized prostate cancer at the Commission on Cancer-ac

119 ical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer at The Johns Hopkins Hospital

120 specimens of 338 men treated for clinically localized prostate cancer between 1995 and 1998 with rad

121 patients who underwent radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer between 2001 and 2012 with hei

122 A total of 302 035 men receiving EBRT for localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2020 were ide

123 dical prostatectomy as primary management of localized prostate cancer between April 2014 and July 20

124 ho were age </= 75 years when diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between October 1994 and Octob

125 conducted a systematic literature review of localized prostate cancer biomarker studies between Janu

126 udies have reported that among patients with localized prostate cancer, black men have a shorter over

127 apy (PADT) is often used to treat clinically localized prostate cancer, but its effects on cause-spec

128 We deployed the system specifically for localized prostate cancer by integrating large-scale pro

129 881 patients who underwent RP for clinically-localized prostate cancer by two high-volume surgeons.

130 Failure to control localized prostate cancer can result not only in localiz

131 Survival rates decrease significantly when localized prostate cancer (CaP) becomes metastatic, emph

132 were somatically lost in 37.5% of clinically localized prostate cancer cells (6 of 16) and 66.7% of m

133 n active treatment approach over another for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient prefere

134 Nonetheless, men treated for localized prostate cancer commonly had declines in all f

135 ces in staining intensity between clinically localized prostate cancer compared with benign prostate

136 men with favorable-risk and unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer could inform treatment selecti

137 d-quality trial found that prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer decreased risk for prostate ca

138 therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths

139 s of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-

140 uces disease-specific mortality for men with localized prostate cancer detected clinically.

141 Among men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era

142 Localized prostate cancer develops very slowly in most m

143 lowing conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 1992 through 20

144 received definitive surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2002 to 2005.

145 ng the wide range of therapeutic options for localized prostate cancer (e.g., active surveillance, ra

146 In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was a

147 cancer cell lines/xenografts and nine of 89 localized prostate cancers (eleven of 119 or 9% cancers)

148 cohort of 881 patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer enrolled in the North Carolina

149 Among men with localized prostate cancer, especially with low- or inter

150 Men with localized prostate cancer face treatment choices includi

151 ort on a population-based cohort of men with localized prostate cancers followed by expectant (watchf

152 expression to be strongest in the clinically localized prostate cancer, followed by the metastatic tu

153 tive series of 734 men who underwent RRP for localized prostate cancer from 1992 through February 200

154 ructure on 5296 patients with a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer from January 1, 2001, to Decem

155 RI among 39 534 patients with a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer from January 1, 2011, to Decem

156 ite, Hispanic, and African-American men with localized prostate cancer from six US cancer registries

157 nstructing the evolutionary histories of 293 localized prostate cancers from single samples, and eigh

158 mean age, 60 years; range, 49-70 years) with localized prostate cancer (Gleason score</=7, prostate-s

159 he Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for dev

160 he Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifyin

161 he Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 20

162 he current cohort comprised 1655 men in whom localized prostate cancer had been diagnosed between the

163 portance of PSA testing for the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer has become well established in

164 t in the management of high-grade clinically localized prostate cancer has been shown for 70 Gy radia

165 node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer has long been an established p

166 subtypes attributable to specific stages of localized prostate cancer has proven difficult due to hi

167 No one treatment for localized prostate cancer has proven superior to date.

168 Treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer have expanded and the role of

169 gnificant number of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer have prostate cells detectable

170 Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment

171 Among men with localized prostate cancer, hazard ratios of 2.07 (95% co

172 ostatectomy reduces mortality among men with localized prostate cancer; however, important questions

173 eported outcome among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer; however, our results suggest

174 In localized prostate cancer, hypoxia was associated with e

175 tinely used for the detection and staging of localized prostate cancer, imaging-based assessment and

176 the treatment armamentarium of early stage, localized prostate cancer in appropriately selected cand

177 ively describe the tumor microenvironment of localized prostate cancer in comparison with adjacent no

178 5-year PSA outcomes for men with clinically localized prostate cancer in intermediate- and high-risk

179 ased study on use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in Sweden.

180 e addition of NAAD to TIPPB in patients with localized prostate cancer in this retrospective matched-

181 went a radical prostatectomy, for clinically localized prostate cancer, in the Department of Urology

182 risk stratification for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, including those with low-risk

183 ward trend in pathologic stage in clinically localized prostate cancer, independent of preoperative P

184 uishing indolent from clinically significant localized prostate cancer is a major clinical challenge

185 Localized prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed because

186 Although the prognosis for clinically localized prostate cancer is now favorable, there are st

187 A common treatment modality for localized prostate cancer is radiotherapy.

188 A key challenge in the management of localized prostate cancer is the identification of men w

189 Nowadays the treatment paradigm for localized prostate cancer is to distinguish patients wit

190 The appropriate therapy for men with localized prostate cancer is uncertain.

191 ugh miR-182 is expressed at higher levels in localized prostate cancer, its levels are lower in aggre

192 Conclusion: PSMA PET/CT localized prostate cancer lesions in 75% of patients and

193 (ADT) is a standard definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer (LPCa).

194 ent risk groups for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the PSA era.

195 ndividual urologist rates of observation for localized prostate cancer may be a valuable performance

196 A total of 313 062 patients with localized prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [7.7] yea

197 uary 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PS

198 A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Bla

199 Among patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 77 years), 7867 (

200 Following treatment for localized prostate cancer, men are monitored with serial

201 ber of effective therapies are available for localized prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer is

202 nd radiation treatments exist for clinically localized prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer re

203 clinical evaluation or treatment of men with localized prostate cancer.METHODSTo assess the role of l

204 ow that E2F1 expression is low in benign and localized prostate cancer, modestly elevated in metastat

205 In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, most functional differences a

206 rostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (n = 75), localized prostate cancer (n = 116), and metastatic pros

207 In patients with localized prostate cancer, neither margin status nor bio

208 CR tumors versus the tumors of patients with localized prostate cancer not treated with androgen depr

209 Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with externa

210 Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer often undergo multiple therapi

211 metastatic prostate cancer as compared with localized prostate cancer or benign prostatic tissues, b

212 te cancer patients relative to patients with localized prostate cancer or controls.

213 tly increased risk for advanced, but not for localized, prostate cancer (OR, 2.90; 95% confidence int

214 ed the prevalence of 4.6% among 499 men with localized prostate cancer (P<0.001), including men with

215 A growing segment of the localized prostate cancer patient population has very lo

216 Prevention Trial (PCPT) and from clinically localized prostate cancer patients studied for long-term

217 usion partners in a cohort of 110 clinically localized prostate cancer patients.

218 ort the clinical decision-making process for localized prostate cancer patients.

219 In deciding on a treatment for localized prostate cancer, patients must weigh the risks

220 atient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer, patterns of severity, recover

221 Prostatectomy or radiation for localized prostate cancer (PC) can fail in up to 15% to

222 of patients treated with curative intent for localized prostate cancer (PC) experience biochemical re

223 Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer (PC) using high-intensity focu

224 Dose-escalated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa) has a clear therapeutic

225 sive evidence suggesting that black men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) have worse cancer-specif

226 e several decision aids for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limitations i

227 therapy (RT) in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).

228 nsitive marker for colorectal and clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).

229 r ablation (FLA) is a promising treatment in localized prostate cancer (PCa).

230 gly used, locally ablative therapy option in localized prostate cancer (PCa).

231 promising new modality for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa).

232 ignificantly decreased in CRPC compared with localized prostate cancer (PCa).

233 Cohort A patients had biopsy-proven localized prostate cancer preceding radical prostatectom

234 For patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, preoperative plasma IGFBP-2 l

235 In patients with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy and rad

236 Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was ass

237 In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was ass

238 From 1975 to 1992, 1,465 men with clinically localized prostate cancer received radiation therapy on

239 perior long-term cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer receiving high-dose versus con

240 rgo radiation for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer relapse biochemically within 5

241 rsal, downregulation of miRNAs in clinically localized prostate cancer relative to benign peripheral

242 erse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear.

243 Despite considerable advances, high-risk localized prostate cancer remains an extremely refractor

244 the risk of financial toxicity for men with localized prostate cancer remains poorly studied.

245 Clinically localized prostate cancer samples with high Gleason grad

246 tive for MTA1 (83%) compared with clinically localized prostate cancer (score = 2.8/4, 63% positive c

247 proton radiation for 393 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage T1b-T2b, prostate-speci

248 70 years with locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer starting a 2-year course of AD

249 ficantly reduced as compared with those with localized prostate cancer, suggesting that the function

250 nearly 20 years of follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated wi

251 clusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a sign

252 ubstantial variation exists in management of localized prostate cancer that is not explained by measu

253 tic prostate cancer; in addition, clinically localized prostate cancers that express higher concentra

254 In men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-depr

255 Among 2155 patients with localized prostate cancer, the median follow-up was 7.2

256 nds, hold promise to reduce the morbidity of localized prostate cancer therapy.

257 most men are diagnosed with readily curable localized prostate cancer, those with high-risk features

258 Other methods for treating localized prostate cancer (three-dimensional conformal r

259 We studied 1095 men with localized prostate cancer to assess whether the rate of

260 and pERK levels increased significantly from localized prostate cancer to CRPC and further upon enzal

261 uality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer to help guide treatment decisi

262 It is now clear that progression from localized prostate cancer to incurable castrate-resistan

263 uary 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or ob

264 ed study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention

265 e bone marrow of 86 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated by radical prostatecto

266 hundred thirty-six patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated from 1966 to 1974 with

267 ata suggest that for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer treated with radiation, 4 mont

268 mical recurrence in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatec

269 stant metastases (DM) rates in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with RP or EBRT at a s

270 dverse effects of contemporary approaches to localized prostate cancer treatment could inform shared

271 Among men with clinically localized prostate cancer, treatment with higher-dose ra

272 f the comparative effectiveness and harms of localized prostate cancer treatments is difficult becaus

273 The comparative effectiveness of localized prostate cancer treatments is largely unknown.

274 pact of treatment to patients choosing among localized prostate cancer treatments.

275 514 male veterans 18 years and older who had localized prostate cancer (tumor stages T1-T3) diagnosed

276 Here, we report the telomere lengths of 392 localized prostate cancer tumours and characterize their

277 tage or biochemical failure in patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatecto

278 Twelve patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent immediate in situ pr

279 Two hundred twenty-four men with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent ultrasound-guided sy

280 onths, focal irreversible electroporation of localized prostate cancer was associated with low urogen

281 To fully characterize the transcriptome of localized prostate cancer, we performed ultra-deep total

282 LRP) between July 2014 and January 2019 with localized prostate cancer were included in this study.

283 nuary 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly as

284 Between 1989 and 1995, 213 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with a 3-month co

285 1972 to 1999, 1,469 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with radical radi

286 vival among the majority of elderly men with localized prostate cancer when compared with conservativ

287 ncreased approximately 18-fold in clinically localized prostate cancers when compared to normal prost

288 FoxA1 expression is slightly upregulated in localized prostate cancer wherein cell proliferation is

289 ecurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the fram

290 tify men with newly diagnosed and clinically localized prostate cancer who are at high risk for early

291 mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with localized prostate cancer who are unselected for family

292 ed with no PADT for most men with clinically localized prostate cancer who did not receive curative i

293 ge comparative studies involving adults with localized prostate cancer who either had first-line radi

294 The proportion of black patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent RP within 90 day

295 Eligibility included localized prostate cancer with an elevated prostate-spec

296 Brachytherapy has emerged as a modality for localized prostate cancer with outcomes and toxicity bei

297 prostate cancer as well as the management of localized prostate cancer with radiation.

298 osed in 2011-2012 with clinical stage cT1-2, localized prostate cancer, with prostate-specific antige

299 gically proven low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer within 6 months of screening,

300 d safe in men with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer without serious complications