戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1  pancreatic tumour and to determine surgical resectability.
2 sidered with caution in terms of an improved resectability.
3 ought achieved high accuracy in categorizing resectability.
4 d patients who hope to achieve conversion to resectability.
5 ered for neoadjuvant treatment regardless of resectability.
6 epending on response to therapy and surgical resectability.
7 to explore performance in categorizing tumor resectability.
8 r type on MR images were all associated with resectability.
9  consensus classification and assess upfront resectability.
10 emotherapy and then stratified by subsequent resectability.
11 djuvant chemotherapy, and determine surgical resectability.
12 at allow for objectively defined criteria of resectability.
13 ment extent to define prognosis and surgical resectability.
14  K(1) (P < 0.021), irrespective of stage and resectability.
15 shed as the standard procedure for achieving resectability.
16 nverting patients with hepatic metastases to resectability.
17 uivalent for nodal staging and assessment of resectability.
18 eceptor scintigraphy since 1994 to determine resectability.
19    Patients were periodically reassessed for resectability.
20 creatic tumors and determination of surgical resectability.
21 edicted likelihood of distant metastases and resectability.
22 reatest determinant of long-term outcome was resectability.
23 vocal, LUS allowed accurate determination of resectability.
24 ar future, redefine the boundary of surgical resectability.
25 ded to reduce tumor size, improving surgical resectability.
26 patient, and suggest an evolving concept of "resectability."
27 e following computed tomography criteria for resectability: 1) the absence of extrapancreatic disease
28 nts had 100% sensitivity in the detection of resectability, 72% specificity, 89% PPV, and 100% NPV.
29  chemotherapy is capable of increasing tumor resectability and changing patient outcomes.
30 al chemoradiation has been shown to increase resectability and decrease local recurrence in primary l
31 d not add to the estimation of loco-regional resectability and did not detect new distant metastases.
32  by preoperative chemoradiation can increase resectability and enable sphincter-preserving surgery in
33                                  We assessed resectability and extent of resection by an independent
34 y be the preferred sequence to improve tumor resectability and local-regional control with less risk
35    Multidisciplinary discussions of surgical resectability and medical operability determine the moda
36 otherapy and as prognostic markers for tumor resectability and overall survival of patients with rese
37 t from preoperative functional MRI to assess resectability and reduce the possibility of functional d
38   By multivariate analysis (Cox regression), resectability and stage were independent predictors (P <
39 tumors probably accounted for the suboptimal resectability and survival results.
40  detection of early-stage PDAC with improved resectability and survival.
41 isease assessment, and correlate poorly with resectability and survival.
42 uld be staged, the proposed system predicted resectability and the likelihood of an R0 resection and
43 perative MRI that are predictive of surgical resectability and used them to develop a simple, objecti
44 remained as significant predictors for tumor resectability, and EXO1 R354H, TREX1, and TP73 remained
45 sis remains the most critical determinant of resectability, and hence survival.
46 nse to preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumor resectability, and overall survival, respectively, in un
47 es were then analyzed for mode of diagnosis, resectability, and overall survival.
48 images separately for the presence of tumor, resectability, and vascular involvement.
49 te number and sites of metastases, determine resectability, assess response to treatment, detect drug
50 endocrine tumors, aiding in early diagnosis; resectability assessment; and personalized treatment pla
51                           Tumor response and resectability (both overall and after induction chemothe
52 r not only assesses tumor depth and surgical resectability but also extramural disease which affects
53  not only assesses tumour depth and surgical resectability but also extramural disease which affects
54                        ALPPS offers improved resectability, but drawbacks are regularly pointed out r
55 at of CT for predicting abdominopelvic tumor resectability by correlating the results with surgical a
56 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) resectability category.
57                                              Resectability criteria are applied inconsistently.
58 atients (29%) had ineligible disease, beyond resectability criteria, at central radiology review.
59 erapy, and challenges in quality control for resectability criteria.
60 e (88%) and the possibility of conversion to resectability, despite disease progression on prior syst
61                                 Estimates of resectability for liver metastases were taken from UK-re
62 g retrospectively reviewed images for lesion resectability; four-, eight-, 16-, and 64-row CT scanner
63                             For categorizing resectability, GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 for each promp
64  (ANN) to improve the prediction of surgical resectability in patients with GBM.
65 lows for the improved prediction of surgical resectability in patients with GBM.
66 objective response and rate of conversion to resectability in patients with uCRLM.
67       PURPOSE To determine the conversion to resectability in patients with unresectable liver metast
68  cycles and portal vein occlusion to achieve resectability, is associated with poor short- and long-t
69 py suggest the possibility that criteria for resectability may potentially be redefined in anticipati
70 citumomab were concordant for abdominopelvic resectability, nonresectability, or absence of disease,
71  as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior ther
72 (1) whether preoperative factors can predict resectability of borderline resectable (BR) and locally
73          The ALPPS approach allows achieving resectability of liver malignancies by a rapid and large
74        Potential improvement in survival and resectability of localized unresectable pancreatic cance
75 invasion, and tumor morphology at MRI on the resectability of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC)
76   Most available imaging tests for assessing resectability of pancreatic cancer do not differ in effe
77                      Detection, staging, and resectability of pancreatic cancer.
78 e the accuracy of imaging in determining the resectability of PDAC and to determine the surgical and
79 nd staging but similar for nodal staging and resectability of preoperatively suspected nonmetastatic
80 olerated, and effective in inducing surgical resectability of primary hepatic tumors in children.
81 also evaluated the variables associated with resectability of the primary tumor after PRRT.
82  using a TNM system and grouped according to resectability of the primary tumor.
83      Prognosis depends on patient's age, the resectability of the tumor, and the presence of metastas
84 also been used preoperatively to improve the resectability of tumors.
85                     The authors examined the resectability, operative morbidity mortality, and surviv
86 s not performed for the purpose of assessing resectability or operative planning ("no-surgery" strate
87 ion for periampullary carcinoma have similar resectability, perioperative morbidity and mortality, an
88 CI, 0.56 to 0.80); a significant increase of resectability rate (NS RR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.76 to 3.74);
89 ty-seven patients underwent tumor resection (resectability rate 71%), of which 26 initiated adjuvant
90 rcinoma of the ampulla of Vater has a higher resectability rate and a better prognosis.
91 re similar with respect to gender, race, and resectability rate but were significantly younger.
92                                          The resectability rate increased with a more distal location
93        In the present series with an overall resectability rate of 58.4%, SL identified 94.1% of the
94                                  The overall resectability rate was 93%.
95                           Surgical findings, resectability rate, length of stay, and operative time w
96                       The operative outcome, resectability rate, pathology, and long-term survival ra
97  smaller tumors but nevertheless had a lower resectability rate.
98                      In the more recent era, resectability rates improved (69% vs. 17%; P = 0.0002),
99 gimens result in enhanced tumor response and resectability rates up to 30%, although the additional b
100 ter preservation, pathologic downstaging, or resectability rates were observed by 5-FU use.
101 l also demonstrated adequate safety and high resectability rates with perioperative chemotherapy, and
102 ary endpoints included incidence, stage, and resectability rates.
103     This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies
104 alyzed; findings were similar to the overall resectability results.
105            After NAT and resection, advanced resectability stage was not associated with worse OS ind
106                                     Advanced resectability stage was significantly more common in the
107    The accuracy of arcitumomab for assessing resectability status is greater than that of CT, both in
108 endently associated with OS after NAT, while resectability status was not.
109 propriate and consistent staging by means of resectability status, thus allowing for comparison of re
110 tic surgeons evaluated the reports to assess resectability, surgical planning, and ease of extracting
111 ET cannot replace CT in defining local tumor resectability, the application of 18FDG-PET in addition
112 hilar cholangiocarcinoma accurately predicts resectability, the likelihood of metastatic disease, and
113         The T-staging system correlates with resectability, the need for hepatectomy, and overall sur
114                                To categorize resectability, three prompting strategies (default knowl
115 y to convert an answer of "unsure" regarding resectability to a definitive answer (ie, resectable or
116 vements in imaging techniques, which permits resectability to be predicted more accurately, and in su
117                                    For tumor resectability, transverse images and curved planar refor
118  Surgeons were more accurate in categorizing resectability using AI-generated reports than original r
119 tatic and current preoperative evaluation of resectability using noninvasive imaging has limited succ
120                                              Resectability was centrally reassessed by a panel of sur
121                                     Surgical resectability was evaluated using triphasic contrast-enh
122 PV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for resectability were calculated for initial clinical inter
123 3 vs 3.0 cm, P = 0.03), but no predictors of resectability were identified.
124 re confident regarding decisions about tumor resectability when they reviewed structured reports befo
125               However, the ability to assess resectability with simple diagnostic laparoscopy remains
126 lligence (AI)-generated reports to determine resectability, with accuracy and review time compared.

 
Page Top