ライフサイエンスコーパス: pancreaticobiliary

1 adenocarcinoma can arise from (intestinal or pancreaticobiliary).

2 secretion and responses to feeding, we used pancreaticobiliary and intestinal cannula to divert bile

3 , gastric (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.24-3.02), and pancreaticobiliary cancers (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.65)

4 ith paired peripheral CTCs, in patients with pancreaticobiliary cancers (PBCs).

5 igation of the genetic alterations common to pancreaticobiliary cancers and aid the understanding of

6 atic and biliary manifestations of AIP mimic pancreaticobiliary cancers.

7 tablishing a strategy to distinguish it from pancreaticobiliary cancers.

8 nt prognosis; two, those with histomolecular pancreaticobiliary carcinoma with LN metastases who had

9 tients with renal cell carcinoma (7 months), pancreaticobiliary carcinomas (3, 5, and 5 months), mela

10 lder, and had been diagnosed with metastatic pancreaticobiliary, colorectal, or gastroesophageal canc

11 was performed in 265 patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary disease and in 35 control patients wi

12 ier RARE MRCP enables accurate evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disease and obviates ERCP in some pat

13 Pancreaticobiliary disease occurred in 20 of 255 transpl

14 Pancreaticobiliary disease occurs 17.4 times (95% CI, 9.

15 tion of hospitalization for the treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease was longer for patients who r

16 Risk factors assessed at presentation of pancreaticobiliary disease were weight change after tran

17 uracy of 100% in determining the presence of pancreaticobiliary disease, the presence and level of bi

18 he diagnostic accuracy of MR examinations of pancreaticobiliary disease.

19 ompare immune cell infiltration of different pancreaticobiliary diseased tissues (PDAC, ampullary car

20 ing generally favorable outcomes in managing pancreaticobiliary diseases.

21 This review aims to record pancreaticobiliary endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and other

22 Pancreaticobiliary IPNB expresses MUC1 and is more frequ

23 ients (nonpancreaticobiliary, LN positive or pancreaticobiliary, LN negative) who had an intermediate

24 iliary brushing specimens from patients with pancreaticobiliary masses.

25 vided histopathologically into intestinal or pancreaticobiliary (PB) types, which may more accurately

26 Intratumoral regions of pancreaticobiliary (PB), intestinal (INT), and gastric f

27 Patients with a histomolecular pancreaticobiliary phenotype (CDX2 negative, MUC1 positi

28 absorption), and (3) if the inhibitor alters pancreaticobiliary secretions or intraluminal pH.

29 olymeric nutrients, potential stimulation of pancreaticobiliary secretions, secretion of humoral medi

30 To determine trends in pancreaticobiliary stents over the past 12-18 months.

31 Endoscopic placement of pancreaticobiliary stents plays an important role in the

32 following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in a pancreaticobiliary surgical specialty unit.

33 s a non-surgical approach to diseases of the pancreaticobiliary system that dates back to the late 19

34 e found at significantly higher frequency in pancreaticobiliary than intestinal, gastric or oncocytic

35 After failed ERCP, MRCP delineated the pancreaticobiliary tract and helped determine therapeuti

36 A significantly higher proportion of pancreaticobiliary tumors compared with intestinal tumor

37 The prognosis of advanced pancreaticobiliary tumors is poor.

38 In this cohort study of patients with pancreaticobiliary tumors, there was a significant mCR b