ライフサイエンスコーパス: mediastinoscopy

1 y first (seven dropouts before and six after mediastinoscopy).

2 in 10 patients (13%), all of whom underwent mediastinoscopy.

3 red with $78,800 per QALY gained for routine mediastinoscopy.

4 ) selective mediastinoscopy, and (3) routine mediastinoscopy.

5 se patients more invasive procedures such as mediastinoscopy.

6 characteristics of EBUS-TBNA are similar to mediastinoscopy.

7 one is noninferior to EBUS with confirmatory mediastinoscopy.

8 ide a diagnosis, then participants underwent mediastinoscopy.

9 EBUS-TBNA prevented 87% of mediastinoscopies (95% confidence interval [CI], 77-94%;

10 he absence of nodal metastases, confirmatory mediastinoscopy according to current guidelines.

11 m our current practice to forgo confirmatory mediastinoscopy after negative findings on EBUS.

12 n in the rate of unforeseen N2, confirmatory mediastinoscopy after negative systematic endosonography

13 ($2,998) per patient, whereas a strategy of mediastinoscopy alone was significantly more costly at p

14 Many methods for staging exist; mediastinoscopy, an invasive procedure requiring general

15 ically negative in mediastinum; 44 with both mediastinoscopy and surgery); 13 patients had positive m

16 est computed tomography alone, (2) selective mediastinoscopy, and (3) routine mediastinoscopy.

17 ndosonography versus additional confirmatory mediastinoscopy before resection are lacking.

18 was conservatively constructed by requiring mediastinoscopy (biopsy) to confirm imaging results so t

19 Further, in the 6 patients undergoing mediastinoscopy, bronchoscopy, or endoscopy, 3D imaging

20 In T1 patients, selective mediastinoscopy cost $24,500 per QALY gained, compared w

21 Mediastinoscopy detected metastases in 8.0% (14/175; 95%

22 section (8.8%) was noninferior compared with mediastinoscopy first (7.7%) in both intention-to-treat

23 after immediate resection versus 15.4% after mediastinoscopy first (P = .4940).

24 ion (seven dropouts) and 182 to confirmatory mediastinoscopy first (seven dropouts before and six aft

25 mediate lung tumor resection or confirmatory mediastinoscopy followed by tumor resection.

26 The EBUS-TBNA strategy is less costly than mediastinoscopy if the cost per EBUS-TBNA procedure is l

27 US-TBNA) is established as an alternative to mediastinoscopy in patients with lung cancer.

28 can frequently be used as an alternative to mediastinoscopy in patients with lymphadenopathy.

29 ter EBUS alone versus EBUS with confirmatory mediastinoscopy in patients with resectable NSCLC.

30 However, whether confirmatory mediastinoscopy is necessary is a matter of debate, and

31 ative findings on EBUS, a confirmatory video mediastinoscopy is still recommended by the European Soc

32 are a common presentation to physicians, and mediastinoscopy is traditionally considered the "gold st

33 ive PET scan in these patients suggests that mediastinoscopy is unnecessary and that these patients c

34 uded biopsy-proven N2 lesion (stage IIIA) by mediastinoscopy, Karnofsky performance score > or = 70,

35 Routine mediastinoscopy maximized quality-adjusted life expectan

36 Routine mediastinoscopy maximizes quality-adjusted life expectan

37 Seven patients underwent mediastinoscopy (n = 3), lobectomy (n = 2), thoracoscopi

38 mediastinal lymph nodes was performed using mediastinoscopy or thoracotomy.

39 y (endobronchial ultrasound-guided biopsy or mediastinoscopy) or surgical resection.

40 d invasive staging, defined as bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy, or thoracoscopy, were included.

41 Biopsy via mediastinoscopy revealed noncaseating confluent granulom

42 A mediastinoscopy scope was inserted and the mediastinal d

43 However, mediastinoscopy should be considered in the setting of a

44 Both mediastinoscopy strategies correctly identified more pat

45 Mediastinoscopy was long considered the gold standard fo

46 In T2 and T3 patients, the ICER of routine mediastinoscopy was more favorable ($42,800 and $53,400

47 Cervical mediastinoscopy was positive for carcinoma in level 2, 3