ライフサイエンスコーパス: locoregional

1 ceiving PMRT compared to those that did not: locoregional (0 vs 3, P = 0.061), distant (9 vs 3, P = 0

2 .8 vs 19.0 months, P = 0.002) and more often locoregional (46.7% vs 16.2%, P = 0.007) in nature.

3 with lobectomy, no differences were noted in locoregional (5.5% v 5.1%, respectively; P = 1.00), dist

4 ontinues to be systemic therapy, but several locoregional adjunct therapies exist.

5 Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) is a locoregional-administration method leading to high-tissu

6 ar dystrophy type 2A after intramuscular and locoregional administrations.

7 For patients with locoregional advanced head and neck squamous cell carcin

8 tory nodules on a lower limb associated with locoregional anatomical changes and skin injury, with th

9 us (n = 5), overweight (n = 3), and combined locoregional anatomical changes in the lower limbs (n =

10 es in the operative specimen, including both locoregional and apical node status, in contrast to the

11 udies have evaluated alternative methods for locoregional and distant disease detection and staging.

12 e technique provided valuable information on locoregional and distant disease in this preliminary ret

13 cumulative incidence of competing mortality, locoregional and distant failure, and second malignancie

14 Locoregional and distant recurrence remains common and u

15 patients, (18)F-fluciclovine PET visualized locoregional and distant spread including that of lobula

16 st tumor imaging as well as for detection of locoregional and distant spread.

17 Recurrence (locoregional and distant) of MCC and patient survival (o

18 and systemic therapy, extensive surgery for locoregional and metastatic disease, local ablative ther

19 modal imaging study was the investigation of locoregional and remote relationships between metabolism

20 with advanced stage or unresectable disease, locoregional and systemic chemotherapeutics are primary

21 Here we show that locoregional and systemic delivery of a rAAV2/8 vector e

22 elid or ocular surface tumor, globe salvage, locoregional and systemic metastasis, and death.

23 immune-mediated tumour eradication, both at locoregional and systemic sites of disease.

24 Despite progress in locoregional and systemic therapies, patient survival fr

25 s that are most likely to benefit from newer locoregional and systemic therapies.

26 uced overall survival and increased overall, locoregional, and mixed tumor recurrence.

27 inimally invasive parathyroidectomy (ex-MIP; locoregional anesthesia, conscious sedation, and explora

28 Locoregional anesthesia, conscious sedation, and explora

29 gside gains from lead-time bias and improved locoregional approaches and supportive care.

30 Locoregional breast cancers diagnosed in 2004 (n = 6,734

31 forty-three individuals with newly diagnosed locoregional breast or prostate cancer were recruited fr

32 d condition quality of care in patients with locoregional breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer diag

33 est (0.07-0.61), proportion of patients with locoregional cancer recurrence (1.1-46.2%), and in-hospi

34 mph-node harvest, in-hospital mortality, and locoregional cancer recurrence.

35 otic leak (SEAL) upon long-term survival and locoregional cancer recurrence.

36 ph nodes harvest, in-hospital mortality, and locoregional cancer recurrence.

37 Emerging data suggest that locoregional cancer therapeutic approaches with oncolyti

38 Surgery and radiotherapy, two locoregional cancer treatments, are essential to help im

39 ameworks are not immediately transferable to locoregional cancer treatments.

40 Unfortunately, elucidation of the locoregional changes that contribute to increased tumor

41 ouracil, after delivery by infusion into the locoregional circulation in a multifocal hepatic metasta

42 Among patients with locoregional clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at high ris

43 urvival (log-rank P = .026) in patients with locoregional colorectal cancer.

44 umor and demonstrate important advantages of locoregional compared to systemic delivery of CAR T cell

45 n-free survival (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.81), locoregional control (0.73, 0.64-0.83), distant control

46 ent week was also associated with better 3-y locoregional control (100% vs. 68%, P = 0.021).

47 g total lymphocytes correlated with superior locoregional control (LRC) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.279; P

48 The primary end point was locoregional control (LRC); secondary end points include

49 ; and this regimen led to excellent rates of locoregional control and disease-free survival.

50 Secondary end points were 5-year locoregional control and disease-free-survival.

51 Locoregional control and larynx preservation were signif

52 er studies are warranted to assess long-term locoregional control and late toxicities.

53 on with HPV-positive disease, with decreased locoregional control and overall survival (OS).

54 ovements have translated into improvement in locoregional control and overall survival probability, w

55 liver based on traditional considerations of locoregional control and survival benefit are modified b

56 ve risk 1.44, 95% CI 1.01-2.05; p=0.045) and locoregional control at longest follow-up (1.26, 1.05-1.

57 Locoregional control did not differ between treatment gr

58 Cetuximab is inferior to cisplatin regarding locoregional control for concomitant treatment with RT i

59 ned with radiotherapy significantly improved locoregional control of bladder cancer, as compared with

60 The 5-year locoregional control rates were similar for the ALND+RLN

61 Locoregional control via surgery may improve outcomes fo

62 Patients achieved the best local and locoregional control when SNB was coupled with a more th

63 ondary end points were response rate, 3-year locoregional control, 3-year overall survival (OS), safe

64 overall survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional control, at 5 years and at longest follow-u

65 Rates of locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall

66 Secondary end points were locoregional control, local control with dose-escalated

67 ed groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival.

68 Locoregional control, patterns of failure, and survivals

69 The primary endpoint was locoregional control, with a secondary endpoint of survi

70 re overall and disease-specific survival and locoregional control.

71 involved SNs remains the standard to achieve locoregional control.

72 3/sTGFBR3 enhanced TGF-beta signaling within locoregional DC populations and upregulated both the imm

73 Locoregional death of cancer cells (in vitro) is induced

74 Locoregional delivery induces high levels of microdystro

75 Our results thus show that locoregional delivery of a suicide gene by RCR vectors i

76 7%), toward local or focal therapy (56%) for locoregional disease (126/382, 33%), and toward systemic

77 However, subanalysis of patients with locoregional disease (clinical stage II/III) demonstrate

78 y should be considered to improve control of locoregional disease and to overcome the inherent limita

79 Recurrence was defined by the return of locoregional disease and/or development of distant metas

80 , more than 80% of patients had localised or locoregional disease at presentation.

81 asured excision margins and SNB on local and locoregional disease control in patients with primary cu

82 radical cystectomy has an ability to improve locoregional disease control, assign pathologic nodal st

83 emoradiotherapy can now accomplish excellent locoregional disease control, but patient overall surviv

84 Treatment of RB for patients with locoregional disease was characterized as surgical thera

85 with curative intent due to the presence of locoregional disease, and 4 received palliative care due

86 Among patients with locoregional disease, undertreatment in females may refl

87 At 2 years, rates of locoregional disease-free survival were 67% (95% confide

88 Clinicopathologic predictors of local and locoregional disease-free survival were investigated.

89 utcomes were disease-free survival, isolated locoregional disease-free survival, and distant disease-

90 The primary end point was survival free of locoregional disease.

91 clearly defined role in modern management of locoregional disease.

92 h NPV and specificity for excluding residual locoregional disease.

93 oplasms, or in settings involving minimal or locoregional disease.

94 m assignment to first occurrence of invasive locoregional, distant, or contralateral breast cancer.

95 Progressive genomic hypomethylation and locoregional DNA hypermethylation induced by CSC coincid

96 active and relatively safe in patients with locoregional esophageal cancer.

97 m curative treatment regime in patients with locoregional esophageal cancer.

98 rently the preferred management approach for locoregional esophageal cancer.

99 OS (72.9% v. 75.8%, respectively; P = .32), locoregional failure (19.9% v. 25.9%, respectively; P =

100 (HR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.03; P = .005), locoregional failure (HR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.98; P

101 Locoregional failure (LRF) after breast-conserving thera

102 Locoregional failure (LRF) and distant metastasis (DM) r

103 diochemotherapy in those at moderate risk of locoregional failure (LRF) following surgery.

104 anal canal (SCCAC) is characterized by high locoregional failure (LRF) rates after definitive chemor

105 anal canal (SCCAC) is characterized by high locoregional failure (LRF) rates after sphincter-preserv

106 vidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast c

107 rcome possible morbidity/mortality caused by locoregional failure (LRF).

108 nes from the cDNA microarray correlated with locoregional failure (two-sample t test, P < .05).

109 stomy-free survival [CFS]), CF, and relapse (locoregional failure [LRF], distant metastasis) in this

110 62 surviving patients, the 5-year rates for locoregional failure and overall survival were 1.5% and

111 ated to angiogenesis/metastasis that predict locoregional failure in patients with laryngopharyngeal

112 Locoregional failure occurred in nine of 35 patients.

113 , 95% CI 62.4-72.2 vs 78.4%, 73.8-83.0), and locoregional failure was significantly higher in the cet

114 with significant reductions of progression, locoregional failure, and distant failure compared with

115 The 5-y cumulative incidence of locoregional failure, distant failure, and death was 16.

116 Secondary end points were 5-year locoregional failure, overall survival, and acute and la

117 gnificantly better disease-free survival and locoregional failure-free interval as well as with signi

118 d for new strategies to decrease the risk of locoregional failure.

119 The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was 23% (95% CI, 16% to

120 dence in the interpretation of PSMA-positive locoregional findings was scored on a 5-point scale, fir

121 matic injury (trauma patients) interact with locoregional health care systems.

122 phase 3 trial, we assigned 615 patients with locoregional, high-risk clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma

123 cal [hazard ratio (HR), 0.91; P < 0.001) and locoregional (HR, 0.97; P = 0.042) tumor control on mult

124 Fourteen days after locoregional infusion, systemic administration of 5FC re

125 or biology, radiographic imaging techniques, locoregional interventional treatments, and immunosuppre

126 cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has a proclivity for locoregional invasion.

127 to a significantly lower number of equivocal locoregional lesions (P = 0.024), and reader 2 reported

128 ay increase confidence in interpreting small locoregional lesions adjacent to the urinary tract but m

129 -1007 facilitated the interpretability of 27 locoregional lesions.

130 Our retrospective data indicate that locoregional LND improves tumor staging and leads to a f

131 of recurrence after neoadjuvant treatment as locoregional (LR) or distant metastasis (DM).

132 The impact of a locoregional lymph node dissection (LND) has never been

133 bdomyosarcoma Study) III and IV patients had locoregional lymph node involvement at diagnosis.

134 etect T3b disease or higher and, especially, locoregional lymph node metastases.

135 , eyelid tumor recurrence (n = 5 eyes, 31%), locoregional lymph node metastasis (n = 3, 2%), systemic

136 ll cancer displays a marked predilection for locoregional lymph node metastasis.

137 otocol with (18)F-FDG PET/CT for primary and locoregional lymph node staging in NSCLC patients using

138 ease in the prostate bed in 27% of patients, locoregional lymph nodes in 39%, and distant metastatic

139 Determining whether cancer has spread to locoregional lymph nodes is a critical step in the initi

140 re tumor size of smaller than 5 cm, negative locoregional lymph nodes, age less than 10 years, low IR

141 cell carcinomas (HNSCC) often metastasize to locoregional lymph nodes, and lymph node involvement rep

142 HNSCCs often metastasize to locoregional lymph nodes, and lymph node involvement rep

143 herapy in organ-confined disease, staging of locoregional lymph nodes, detection of locally recurrent

144 c distribution to antigen-matched tumors and locoregional lymph nodes, followed by a more promiscuous

145 ent in clinical specimens of HNSCCs invading locoregional lymph nodes.

146 f life and cosmetic outcomes after different locoregional management approaches, as perceived by pati

147 At present, the integration of subtypes in locoregional management decisions is still in its infanc

148 s regarding the use of radiotherapy for, and locoregional management of, women with triple-negative b

149 ns based on subtypes are available, standard locoregional management principles should be adhered to.

150 ntratumoral immune reaction in stage IV (non-locoregional) melanoma metastases.

151 r artifact; 3, indeterminate; 4, most likely locoregional metastases in the neck bed; 5, most likely

152 nosis (initial; n = 2,042), or who developed locoregional metastasis as a first recurrence some time

153 nitial PET/CT features of primary tumour and locoregional metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) in breast canc

154 Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced locoregional multiple nodular panniculitis without septi

155 hese patients, 92 patients had metastases in locoregional nodes, 114 patients in truncal nodes, 21 pa

156 astases, 35 months for metastases limited to locoregional nodes, 16 months for positive truncal nodes

157 We describe P aeruginosa-induced locoregional nodular panniculitis as a distinct entity.

158 recurrence ( P < .001) but not in those with locoregional-only recurrence ( P = .353).

159 han in lung-only recurrence (18.2 months) or locoregional-only recurrence (24.7 months; P = .001).

160 Recurrence was defined as any locoregional or distant breast event, or both.

161 We discuss the findings, locoregional or distant, that can be expected in differe

162 At a median follow-up time of 33 months, locoregional or systemic disease progression was observe

163 l (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.15-1.73; P = 0.011), locoregional (OR = 1.56; 95% CI: 1.05-2.24; P = 0.030),

164 ar local progression-free (PF), regional PF, locoregional PF, and distant metastasis-free rates were

165 troys malignant cells through induction of a locoregional pH change.

166 Locoregional plus distant 5-year invasive RFI was 97.0%

167 r disease progression whereas distant versus locoregional progression (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.09

168 ssignments, 10-year cumulative incidences of locoregional progression were 6% (95% CI, 4.3% to 8.0%)

169 .5 years (IQR 2.1-2.9), the estimated 2 year locoregional progression-free interval was 83.7% (95% CI

170 Despite successful surgical treatment of locoregional PSCC, effective treatment options for advan

171 three cycles of taxane chemotherapy and then locoregional radiotherapy.

172 R 39.2-81.8), 60 (7%) patients had developed locoregional recurrence (31 patients in the hypofraction

173 rs, there were no significant differences in locoregional recurrence (5.5% vs. 9.3%; P=0.296), cancer

174 ent was associated with a decreased risk for locoregional recurrence (AHR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6]), wh

175 significance as an independent predictor of locoregional recurrence (HR = 3.57, 95% CI 0.93-13.6, P

176 o did not have an SNB were at higher risk of locoregional recurrence (HR, 1.67; P = 0.003).

177 The limited information on predictors of locoregional recurrence (LRR) after neoadjuvant chemothe

178 rectal resection (Open) for rectal cancer on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and disease-free survival

179 Preoperative CRT reduced locoregional recurrence (LRR) from 34% to 14% (P < .001)

180 ated the association between RS and risk for locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients with node-nega

181 were identified in regional recurrence (RR), locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM),

182 r breast-conserving surgery (BCS) to prevent locoregional recurrence (LRR).

183 ral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and other locoregional recurrence (oLRR) were calculated, along wi

184 The primary end point was locoregional recurrence 3 years after the index surgery.

185 h rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional recurrence and disease-free and overall sur

186 Locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis were incl

187 Three (7%) patients had locoregional recurrence and one (2%) had distant metasta

188 al lymph node metastases are associated with locoregional recurrence and, when they involve either si

189 Increased rates of locoregional recurrence are observed in patients with ba

190 G) Z0011 trial demonstrated no difference in locoregional recurrence for patients with positive senti

191 d has potential utility for the detection of locoregional recurrence from an early stage.

192 uman c-Met, for the detection of early-stage locoregional recurrence in a human basal-like breast can

193 lly over prolonged periods for prevention of locoregional recurrence in colorectal cancer.

194 Locoregional recurrence occurred in only 7 patients (6.7

195 Locoregional recurrence of breast cancer poses significa

196 ntly leads to poor long-term survival due to locoregional recurrence or metastases.

197 east-conserving therapy had no difference in locoregional recurrence or survival after SLN biopsy alo

198 ifference was noted in overall survival, and locoregional recurrence rate between the local-regional

199 At 3 years, the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% in the two groups

200 Locoregional recurrence rates after BCT have decreased o

201 for improving overall survival and lowering locoregional recurrence rates.

202 re- and post-NAC stage in predicting risk of locoregional recurrence remains an area of controversy.

203 We now report long-term locoregional recurrence results.

204 The 9-year locoregional recurrence risk was low.

205 ation therapy because data suggest increased locoregional recurrence risks (relative to luminal subty

206 The 9-year risk of locoregional recurrence was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.0% to 5.0%)

207 Ten-year cumulative locoregional recurrence was 6.2% with ALND and 5.3% with

208 y group); the 5-year cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence was 8.3% (90% CI 5.8-10.7) in th

209 Locoregional recurrence was evaluated.

210 Locoregional recurrence was prospectively evaluated and

211 2%); 5-year actuarial distant metastasis and locoregional recurrence were 54% (n = 36) and 28% (n = 2

212 the previously observed small improvement in locoregional recurrence with the addition of radiation t

213 r recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic

214 The primary endpoint was 5-year locoregional recurrence, and a 5% margin was used to est

215 neoadjuvant chemotherapy predict the risk of locoregional recurrence, and can be used to tailor recom

216 amework that models distinct disease stages (locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, breast-canc

217 liver-only recurrence, but not in those with locoregional recurrence, which demonstrates a need for c

218 The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival rates were also no

219 low-up of 36 months, 3-year disease-free and locoregional recurrence-free survivals were 88% and 96%,

220 distant recurrence however failed to affect locoregional recurrence.

221 induration assuming noninferiority regarding locoregional recurrence.

222 ted except in those with significant risk of locoregional recurrence.

223 distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence.

224 val (PFS), actuarial distant metastasis, and locoregional recurrence.

225 Patients with isolated locoregional recurrences (ILRR) of breast cancer have a

226 rts were analyzed for the risk assessment of locoregional recurrences (LR) and distant metastases (DM

227 After surgical treatment, multiple locoregional recurrences are common; recurrences outside

228 diagnostic surgical procedures, incidence of locoregional recurrences or distant metastases, disease-

229 r a median follow-up of 37 months, local and locoregional recurrences were observed in 48 (7.6%) and

230 oxic effects of high-dose re-irradiation for locoregional recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer.

231 Assessment of expected locoregional relapse risk informs the magnitude and time

232 re associated with an increased frequency of locoregional relapse, but no significant difference in o

233 ET/CT on survival outcomes-overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, clinical relapse-fre

234 The 2-y overall survival, locoregional relapse-free survival, cRFS, and bRFS were

235 antial reduction in both overall relapse and locoregional relapse.

236 ant metastases (P = .016) than with isolated locoregional relapses (P = .97).

237 hat might lead to death, such as distant and locoregional relapses outside the preserved breast-witho

238 acy and safety of sunitinib in patients with locoregional renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor

239 pic biopsies, EUS, or PET(-CT) for detecting locoregional residual disease after nCRT for squamous ce

240 ssion because radiation provides an absolute locoregional risk reduction.

241 ry 21 days with intrathecal methotrexate and locoregional RT is the current international standard of

242 hich patients benefit the most from local or locoregional RT vs those at very low risk for recurrence

243 6 associated with their release in patients' locoregional sera.

244 ion efficiency of siRNA-lipoplexes under the locoregional setting in vivo (i.e., intraperitoneal trea

245 Eight patients progressed in locoregional sites, three in distant, and one in both.

246 the sensitivity of the pathologic staging of locoregional spread using a beta-binomial model and deve

247 For advanced esophageal cancer, locoregional staging is best performed with EUS-FNA, wit

248 ast cancer is multidisciplinary; it includes locoregional (surgery and radiation therapy) and systemi

249 patients who were treated with transarterial locoregional therapies (chemoembolization or radioemboli

250 s of patients with HCC who were treated with locoregional therapies (LRTs) (chemoembolization and rad

251 Subsequent systemic and liver-directed locoregional therapies ameliorated survival, highlightin

252 n therapies such as algorithms consisting of locoregional therapies and systemic or radiation therapi

253 Additionally, the combination strategies of locoregional therapies and/or systemic therapy are being

254 s presenting with local disease treated with locoregional therapies die without developing extrahepat

255 The evaluation of tumor viability after such locoregional therapies is essential to directing hepatoc

256 iod, 285 patients treated with transarterial locoregional therapies underwent scheduled imaging follo

257 ents with active HCC unsuitable for standard locoregional therapies were conducted from 2004 to 2010.

258 Recent advances in locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapie

259 The other treatment strategies include locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapy

260 B HCC who were unfit or failed to respond to locoregional therapies, well compensated cirrhosis, and

261 ions with curative intent potential for some locoregional therapies.

262 erall survival (OS) in patients treated with locoregional therapies.

263 0.04; 95%CI, 0.006-0.24), and liver-directed locoregional therapy (HR, 0.204; 95%CI, 0.04-0.94) were

264 ia were selected based on tumor control with locoregional therapy (LRT) and 9 months of stability fro

265 e pathologic response (cPR) to pretransplant locoregional therapy (LRT) in a large, multicenter cohor

266 valuate the effect of pretransplant bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) on hepatocellular carcinoma (

267 often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either pre

268 Criteria (MC) who are down-staged (DS) with locoregional therapy (LRT).

269 Prognosis after locoregional therapy and benefit from adjuvant systemic

270 d support the use of AFP response seen after locoregional therapy as an ancillary method of assessing

271 potential clinical implications relative to locoregional therapy decisions for patients with node-ne

272 Available data suggest that locoregional therapy decisions should be based on both t

273 l staging, monitoring of tumor response, and locoregional therapy for patients with breast cancer tre

274 Locoregional therapy with curative intent (CLRT) followe

275 ex and the following variables: age, type of locoregional therapy, AFP, donor sex, body mass index, o

276 sis, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, history of locoregional therapy, and Milan criteria status.

277 ospinal fluid, presenting an opportunity for locoregional therapy, bypassing the blood-brain barrier.

278 sease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an

279 HCC outside MC who received downstaging with locoregional therapy.

280 ive intent and received IC before definitive locoregional therapy.

281 rimary tumour and/or localised radiotherapy (locoregional therapy; LRT) could be associated with over

282 Locoregional transcatheter and ablative therapies contin

283 e manner an overview of the most widely used locoregional transcatheter and ablative therapies for so

284 0% of patients will relapse after definitive locoregional treatment and eventually succumb to their d

285 tment compared with melphalan ILP allows for locoregional treatment anywhere a catheter can be placed

286 the further tailoring of future systemic and locoregional treatment decisions by response assessment.

287 eline mutation status can be useful to guide locoregional treatment decisions.

288 native liver, due to effectiveness of pre-LT locoregional treatment or liver resection, is an intrigu

289 se response to treatment and how to optimize locoregional treatment.

290 adjuvant or neoadjuvant systemic therapy and locoregional treatments would increase bone metastasis-f

291 ion (LT) when HCC is unsuitable for surgical/locoregional treatments.

292 First, locoregional tumor behavior may be more indolent in olde

293 , distant metastases-free survival (DM), and locoregional tumor control (LRC) was performed.

294 The primary end point was locoregional tumor control at 2 years.

295 The 2-year locoregional tumor control rate was 96.2%, with progress

296 Aggressive RT de-escalation resulted in locoregional tumor control rates comparable to historica

297 can be performed safely for OPC and has high locoregional tumor control rates.

298 astomas had higher infiltration of TAMs than locoregional tumors, and metastatic tumors diagnosed in

299 Recurrence subgroups, those with locoregional versus distant disease and those younger ve

300 sotheliomas in the context of both local and locoregional viral delivery.